April 27, 2011

Humanism is not such a new religion at all. It literally has been around since humans existed. It can even be linked to Eve who questioned God's authority, and inserted her own. We have had people that believe self is the ultimate authority forever, such as today's Humanist/Atheist. These days, they're just getting more organized as other religions have.

Also, please spare us the argument that attempts to separate Atheism and Humanism. Sure there are exception, like the fringe group the Raelians, but for the most part they're one in the same.

Atheists will certainly deny they are a part of any religion yet we have made the case over and over again. (Insert past posts here)

I have even made the point that they worship the same god as Satanists. Recently though, they are really trying to branch out on their own, although the philosophy is still the same as the Satanists. Its probably because Satanism is just horrible PR. Atheists are now organizing themselves as a true religion. We read today that "atheist groups are lobbying for a chaplain in the U.S. military. The advocates hope to gain representation for what they say is a large population of nonbelievers in the military." I would think that they cannot deny it any longer. I could be wrong.

This is also on the heels of the release of the Atheist bible affectionately called "the good book". A Bible knock off of purely secular writings and philosophy.

I believe that all of these things are really excuses to "release" them of what they want to be perceived as a theocratic tyranny which is merely just in their minds. Of course its simply laughable especially in this political environment of secularized public school systems/Universities, pro-murder, and this current administration that melts when in the presence of a cross. (Remember when President Obama gave a speech at Georgetown University. Before the speech could take place Pres. Obama insisted that a small cross with IHS (iota, eta, sigma) be hidden. The university had to put a piece of black plywood over the cross to hide it.)

Educators and scientists are still being fired for questioning evolution all over the US. If anything Christians should organize to combat the current anti-theocratic tyranny of this current atheistic Government.

Atheism is here to stay, especially according to the studies that by using statistical models, it predicts that atheist-majority countries will soon dot the globe, for the first time in history. Just as the Bible said would happen in the last days, BTW. I digress.

Newt Gingrich recently said might befall the United States: He said his grandchildren could end up living in "a secular atheist country." Of course he was wrong yet again... He missed it by a couple of generations.

Does God want us to sit idly by and let evil, mankind, reign? We certainly have for all these thousands of years. Like Hedges pointed out "Technology and science, though they're cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history."

Speaking of Satan, its been said that the greatest lie Satan ever told is that he does not exist. Much like Satan's tactic, Atheists will deny their religious existence until they have complete power over our Government and education of our children. That day has come. From the looks of it they've flourished and are doing well in that sense. Yes Atheism, Humanism, and Secularism are all part of the religion of denial of God. The religion of Atheism is flourishing. That is something that cannot be denied any more.

Whatever you call it, Atheism, Humanism, or Secularism. They are certainly not the answers. Its a religion that ends in destruction. They certainly cannot save you from God's Judgment. So what are we going to do about it? I believe its time to dust off those milk crates, get uncomfortable, and proclaim His glory to the masses once again.

124 comments:

Where does Unitarian Universalist fit? You can be Humanist from a secular viewpoint or from a theistic viewpoint in UU. But ultimately, it's your actions, your deeds that count, not your reason for doing them.

First of all you don't know the definitions of secularism, humanism, atheism and religion (this last one you should've know better since you are religious). An advice: do some research about humanism, atheism and secularism before giving your opinion about it and do some research on satanism too.

Second: schools, universities and government organs are right to keep religion and state separated. They shouldn't never prefer one religion over the other. How would you feel (if your kids went to school) if the teachers teached them the hinduism version of creation instead of creationism or intelligent design (that I think you believe in one or the other)? If your kids had to do the pledge to the flag in the name of Buddha or being forced to pray everyday for Allah or else they would spend the whole afternoon in detention? I bet you wouldn't like it...after all is a disrespect to their faith and religion they have.

You and I live in countries where there are a lot of citizens of different religions and it's not fair to them if the government, schools, universities, etc, to prefer one religion over the other.I live in the biggest catholic country in the world (for now; it's my opinion that will change in the future in favor of evangelical churchs, but I digress...). So - you think our government should not be secular and prefer catholicism or even the evangelical religions - since the number of the followers of evangelical religions grow each day - over other religions totally ignoring their citizens who are jews, muslins, spiritualists, buddhists, taoists, hindus, wiccans, satanists, candomble/umbanda followers, agnostics and atheists? Our schools should indoctrinate all their students in catholicism and not care about those students who don't have the same belief system? What about those who don't have a belief system at all? All those students who don't have the same religion and ideology that our government would endorse should just seat in their chairs and shut up or else they would be suspended for not accepting it?

"I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

So there's NO evidence of God because he had hissy fit and removed all evidence of itself. There's NO evidence of Satan because he is lieing about existing. So who is being told by Satan that he doesn't exist.

'Satan can reveal himself to you in a way that you can be certain that he is lying about not- existing'?

We have had people that believe self is the ultimate authority forever, such as today's Humanist/Atheist.

I see from that sentence that you don't actually understand what Secular Humanism is.

Also, please spare us the argument that attempts to separate Atheism and Humanism. Sure there are exception, like the fringe group the Raelians, but for the most part they're one in the same.

Maybe you should tell that to the Christian, Jewish and Buddhist Humanists?

Atheists will certainly deny they are a part of any religion yet we have made the case over and over again.

You didn't actually make a case, you made a baseless assertion which was shown time and again to be unfounded.

I have even made the point that they worship the same god as Satanists.

Yet another point which was shown to be baseless.

Recently though, they are really trying to branch out on their own, although the philosophy is still the same as the Satanists.

You really don't understand the Satanists either...

Its probably because Satanism is just horrible PR.

No worse than modern Christian fundamentalism IMO.

Atheists are now organizing themselves as a true religion.

No, they're not.

We read today that "atheist groups are lobbying for a chaplain in the U.S. military. The advocates hope to gain representation for what they say is a large population of nonbelievers in the military."

Like the humanist chaplains that serve the Dutch military...

I would think that they cannot deny it any longer.

Deny what?

I could be wrong.

It's highly likely.

This is also on the heels of the release of the Atheist bible affectionately called "the good book". A Bible knock off of purely secular writings and philosophy.

And?

I believe that all of these things are really excuses to "release" them of what they want to be perceived as a theocratic tyranny which is merely just in their minds.

Just a short time ago you were asking where the atheists in congress were. Has this somehow changed since January so that the non-religious are now adequately represented? If not it would seem your country is indeed run by religious believers, many of which are becoming more and more vocal in their attempts to force their religous bias into everybody elses lives.

Of course its simply laughable especially in this political environment of secularized public school systems/Universities, pro-murder, and this current administration that melts when in the presence of a cross. (Remember when President Obama gave a speech at Georgetown University. Before the speech could take place Pres. Obama insisted that a small cross with IHS (iota, eta, sigma) be hidden. The university had to put a piece of black plywood over the cross to hide it.)

So the President seems to understand the Constitution he swore to uphold ... shouldn't you be happy about that?

Educators and scientists are still being fired for questioning evolution all over the US.

If anything Christians should organize to combat the current anti-theocratic tyranny of this current atheistic Government.

Atheists in Congress question again... and from everything I've read/seen it seems the religious right has mobilised politically in the form of the Tea Party. Although your Government is supposed to be secular according to your Constitution it's still the case that it's almost impossible to get a position of authority in your country without first demonstrating your love for Jebus.

Atheism is here to stay, especially according to the studies that by using statistical models, it predicts that atheist-majority countries will soon dot the globe, for the first time in history.

Can only be a good thing.

Just as the Bible said would happen in the last days, BTW. I digress.

Last days? lol. Are you expecting to be raptured on May 21st? If so can I have all your stuff?

Newt Gingrich recently said might befall the United States: He said his grandchildren could end up living in "a secular atheist country."

Firstly, Gingrich is an idiot. "Help, help! we'll be surrounded by atheists and persecuted by the mooslims!!!!!!eleventy!!" Do you not see the glaring contradiction in that comment?

Of course he was wrong yet again... He missed it by a couple of generations.

Of course he was wrong, your nation was secular from the outset.

Does God want us to sit idly by and let evil, mankind, reign? We certainly have for all these thousands of years. Like Hedges pointed out "Technology and science, though they're cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history."

I guess you didn't like the rest of Hedges' quote any more than you did Gingrichs':"So, there’s nothing intrinsically moral about science. Science is morally neutral. It serves the good and the bad. I mean, industrial killing is a product of technological advance, just as is penicillin and modern medicine. So I think that I find the faith that these people place in science and reason as a route toward human salvation to be as delusional as the faith the Christian right places in miracles and angels."

Speaking of Satan, its been said that the greatest lie Satan ever told is that he does not exist. Much like Satan's tactic, Atheists will deny their religious existence until they have complete power over our Government and education of our children.

We deny atheism being a religion because ... well ... atheism isn't a religion. It has no dogma, no ritual practice or observance. It is a lack of belief/disbelief in the existence of gods.

That day has come.

I must have missed the memo. Did the president, all of congress and the senate suddenly come out and say "Ha, ha, fooled you, we're all non-believers and we're going to make you all non-believers too."? No? Really? then stop talking rubbish.

From the looks of it they've flourished and are doing well in that sense. Yes Atheism, Humanism, and Secularism are all part of the religion of denial of God. The religion of Atheism is flourishing. That is something that cannot be denied any more.

Whatever you call it, Atheism, Humanism, or Secularism. They are certainly not the answers. Its a religion that ends in destruction. They certainly cannot save you from God's Judgment. So what are we going to do about it? I believe its time to dust off those milk crates, get uncomfortable, and proclaim His glory to the masses once again.

Once more, atheism =/= humanism =/= secularism. You can be 1, 2 or even all 3 of those things but they are not synonyms.

I understand the argument although your entire rant was semantically empty messages. Basically, I just reject your reality and insert my own.

>>Once more, atheism =/= humanism =/= secularism

Of course you would say that. I view it as much like the denominations of Christianity. I am sure Catholics deny they are Lutheran, and vice versa. My point is that, collectively, they (you) deny God much the same as Lutheran and Catholics collectively acknowledge Christ as Lord. My points, although fanatically denied, makes the case well. Yes we are a secular humanistic nation now. Does that mean we are to allow one religion over another? Should we allow Islam, and Sharia law, to rule this Government? Of course not! So why should we roll over and allow any other religion to reign? Especially yours. Just because its your religion does not make it a right or good religion. Your religion is simply destroying this nation. We are loosing our core values of doing the right thing that once was predominate. Now, since your religion has taken over, we have the Enron, Goldman Sacs, BP, and AIG type of people driving this nation to the ground. It needs to stop. Your religion says there is no accountability but to self. Nothing is more selfish then Tony Hayward saying "I'd Like My Life Back" during that oil fiasco. That was because of your selfish religion. So the people with a suppressed conscientious, that were wrongly liberated by your religion, feel they can do what is good for only the self. Its simply is fundamentally wrong. These people get the education from a secular humanistic public school system only to go on to a secular humanistic University with a secular humanistic fields of science and dealing with a secular humanistic Government. Its crazy!

>>Does that mean we are to allow one religion over another? Should we allow Islam, and Sharia law, to rule this Government? Of course not! So why should we roll over and allow any other religion to reign? You are eating your own words.

A secular government doesn't allow one religion over the other. Like you said; a government should never allow Islam to take over and ignore other religions. But they also should never allow other religions to take over, including the one you follow. In a secular government all religions are treated equally and the government doesn't allow religions in general to meddle in the states' business.Besides secular humanism and atheism are not religions, so your claim that your government is taking one religion (in your opinion, secular humanism and atheism) over the other is an empty message.

>>Your religion is simply destroying this nation. We are loosing our core values of doing the right thing that once was predominate. Now, since your religion has taken over, we have the Enron, Goldman Sacs, BP, and AIG type of people driving this nation to the ground.

Really? Now you're saying that financial crises US is facing is the secularism, humanism and atheism's fault? Is that what you mean? I don'tlive in US and have better understanding of what is going in your country than you.

Your country and government had always been secular. The founding fathers never said in any circunstances that US should be a christian nation.

Your reasoning is flawed D.A.N. The only reason you are pissing about the so-called-by-you takeover of the "religions of secularism humanism and atheism in your country allowed by the government that is ruining US"is because - deep down - you want your religion to take over and run the game. I bet - if one day, hypothetically - Obama decided to ignore the US constitution by saying from now on US is a christian nation you would be thrilled! You would celebrate the fact all the kids in US being forced to pray to Jesus (so what if they are muslins, jews, wiccans, atheists; hindus, buddhists, etc? They will have to pray for the "right god" and follow "the right religion" now! ) to learn creationism and intelligent design instead or along with evolution (with the flawed argument that kids will be able to decide wich one is the best/right for them); to be forced to celebrate the National Day of Prayer, to be indoctrinated in the christian faith and all the wacky unconstitutional babbles fanatical christians so hardly defend.

We are not the ones trying to force atheism down your throats; you are the ones trying to force christianity on us by any means necessary, including disobeying the constitution.

No idea whether this posted via WordPress's seemingly paranoid rules, but I'll have another go and try to remember roughly what I attempted to post before. Dan, if you get two very similar comments coming through, feel free to delete the second one - the first one was probably better.

Does God want us to sit idly by and let evil, mankind, reign? We certainly have for all these thousands of years.

Considering that all religions are human inventions - yes, including yours - this seems an odd comment. Your god seems content to let mankind have "dominion" over the rest of the earth, however one interprets that, and has indeed, if he exists, sat idly by and watched whilst we've abused the rest of his creation for our own selfish ends.

Not forgetting, of course, that the first humanists were Christians - not your brand, perhaps, but Christians nonetheless - who believed fervently that they were acting according to their god's will by using their human faculties to discover and understand their god's creation, as they believed the world to be. In that, they were much like you are now, positing your god as the "justification" for science.

Personally, I've always found humanism to be far too exclusive and arrogant a philosophy for me, although I value some of the ideas they express (as I value some of the ideas of Christianity, though not because they are Christian). I have never been a humanist, even when I was officially a Christian - I thought about my place in the world and this didn't necessarily lead me to think I was superior to all other species...

BathTub, your post of Gingrich's comment was hilariously apt - fundy Christians think anyone who isn't like them is automatically an atheist, satanist, humanist, or whatever they think will be most hateful to the voting public, even if they're religiously superstitious to the core.

>>Now you're saying that financial crises US is facing is the secularism, humanism and atheism's fault?

Evil is at fault. You want to know where evil reigns? When God is removed. The cockroaches come out to play when the light goes away. You promote evil. So yes, it is personally all your fault! :7)

>>Your country and government had always been secular.

Bzzzt. False. I hope you understand that ALL 50 STATES, without fail, gives all credit and glory to God. There were far more that believed in God then not. The will of the people freely chose to worship God collectively. "We the people" were predominately Christian with some small exceptions.

>>The founding fathers never said in any [circumstances] that US should be a christian nation.

Right, but they were. Freedoms did not mean abstaining from God, they were put in place to keep government from keeping God away from people. It was the freedoms, and liberty, that God talks about in His Word. Making laws that KEEPS GOD OUT is unconstitutional.

>>Your reasoning is flawed D.A.N. The only reason you are pissing about the so-called-by-you takeover of the "religions of secularism humanism and atheism in your country allowed by the government that is ruining US"is because - deep down - you want your religion to take over and run the game.

Good God fearing men running the game? Where do I sign up?

>>I bet - if one day, hypothetically - Obama decided to ignore the US constitution by saying from now on US is a christian nation you would be thrilled!

Nope. Being unconstitutional and illegal is what's the problem. They're currently illegal and unconstitutional. Being more so does not make it right. Besides we WILL be a Christian world when Christ comes. I will patiently wait for that glorious day.

>> Evil is at fault. You want to know where evil reigns? When God is removed. The cockroaches come out to play when the light goes away. You promote evil. So yes, it is personally all your fault!

The financial crisis US is facing right now has nothing to do "evil reigns" or "god being removed"? And I thought it had to do with the concentration of income and the crisis in the real state market (among other things), silly me...(sarcasm).

What evil am I promoting exactly? The coexistence between the different religions and ideologies? The fact I support human fulfillment through human justice, reason and ethics that benefits everyone (including you) regardless their religion/ideology/worldview?

>> I hope you understand that ALL 50 STATES, without fail, gives all credit and glory to God. There were far more that believed in God then not. The will of the people freely chose to worship God collectively. "We the people" were predominately Christian with some small exceptions.

Where is the US constitution that says "We the people" were predominately christians? Does it mean that the laws in the constitution only applies to christian citizens?

There's no mention to god or christianity in the constitution and I'll show you some parts of the US constitution about religion showing US is a secular country:

1 - Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

2 - Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

>> Right, but they were. Freedoms did not mean abstaining from God, they were put in place to keep government from keeping God away from people. It was the freedoms, and liberty, that God talks about in His Word. Making laws that KEEPS GOD OUT is unconstitutional.

Again, what laws in the constitution that "keeps god out"? The constitution is not the word of god (thankfully) and the fact US is a secular allows you to be free to believe in whatever god you want and to have whatever religion or ideology you want without being opressed by other religions and/or ideologies. And you should be thankful to that. Imagine if you lived is some muslim country where there is no separation between church and state where you would be persecuted just because you're christian?

>> Being unconstitutional and illegal is what's the problem. They're currently illegal and unconstitutional. For argument's sake: so you wouldn't mind if Obama decided to declare US from now on to be a jew or muslim or hindu country? What is unconstitutional is give preference on one religion over the other.

>> Besides we WILL be a Christian world when Christ comes. I will patiently wait for that glorious day. Please D.A.N, don't tell me you are one of those people who believe the rapture will happen in may 21st and the world will end in october 11th where Jebus will come down on earth. My goodness (facepalm)

>>What is unconstitutional is give preference on one religion over the other.

Yea, especially the religion of atheism/humanism/secularism or whatever you wish to call it today. Again, freedom of religion = constitutional. Freedom FROM religion =unconstitutional and what it is today. That is the point of this entire argument. Your religion wins! Our schools bows to atheism/humanism/secularism, science bows to atheism/humanism/secularism, Universities bows to atheism/humanism/secularism. Our entire government bows to atheism/humanism/secularism! Its wrong!!

>> Yea, especially the religion of atheism/humanism/secularism or whatever you wish to call it today. Again, freedom of religion = constitutional. Freedom FROM religion =unconstitutional and what it is today. That is the point of this entire argument. Your religion wins! Our schools bows to atheism/humanism/secularism, science bows to atheism/humanism/secularism, Universities bows to atheism/humanism/secularism. Our entire government bows to atheism/humanism/secularism! Its wrong!!

Come on D.A.N! It's not going to hurt or kill you to make a research and see what atheism, humanism and secularism are really about, what are their definitions... but I guess it won't work with you because you are too blind by unconditional faith and twisted worldviews. By saying atheism/secularism/humanism are religions it means you don't know anything about them and you don't know anything about religions either.

Since when schools, universities and science bows to atheism; humanism and secularism? You say that because it kills you the fact schools, universities and science doesn't bow to your religious beliefs. Thankfully they don't bow to your religion (or any other religion for that matter) because if they did we would still be in the dark ages.

Your ideal of educational and political system is to have your religion to meddle in everyone else's lives. I also bet you would be 1000x thrilled if schools decided to teach children that fallacious creationism and intelligent design instead of evolution; if your religion had the power to decide what science would be allowed to do or not (which would delay our scientific progress in years, again...) by making fallacious claims (for example: stem cells research is about killing babies); the opression of women and minorities would come back, etc, etc, etc...that would be heaven for you, isn't it?

There's nothing in the US constitution that says US should be free FROM religion. It only states that american citizens are free to believe in whatever they want, to have any religion they want, to have any ideology they want without being oppressed by other religions and ideologies. And you should be thankful everyday for that. Seriously, hardcore religious people (like yourself) are the ones having a fit when:

- they see a billboard creating awareness towards atheism (somehow they think atheism alone is an insult to their faith);- when the NY city mayor (I guess it was NY, correct me if I'm wrong) decided to change the name of a holiday;- when they see harmless bus ads creating awareness towards atheism;- when someone says the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional (because it is). The National Day of Prayer wouldn't be unconstitutional if it was allowed for muslins to pray for Allah, to hindus to pray for their gods, to buddhists pray for Buddha and for people of different creeds to pray for their god(s). But that's not what happens, is it?- etc...

Seems to me that DAN is kind of blinded by his cockamamie "everyone's really a believer" ideology, so he's clearly threatened by anyone who's worked out that they don't have to swallow all the superstitious bullshit about god in order to have values and ethics.

As it happens, the corollary to freedom of religion is indeed freedom from religion for those who don't wish to be forced to assert things in which they don't believe - hence the no religious testing for public office and so on in the US constitution. It also means that people can go ahead and preach at you, and you're free to walk away and ignore them, and that you can choose not to attend religious services or engage in religious practices, all without threat of persecution.

Now, if DAN and his ilk were running the show, one suspects this kind of freedom would be swiftly abolished. Thankfully, that's quite unlikely to happen - most of the apparent upsurge in religious fundamentalism we've been seeing of late can pretty much be interpreted as the thrashings of a panicked and dying animal.

It looks like Dan's idiocy has been dealt with already, but for the hell of it, I'll put in my two cents:

DanYea, especially the religion of atheism/humanism/secularism or whatever you wish to call it today. Again, freedom of religion = constitutional. Freedom FROM religion =unconstitutional and what it is today. That is the point of this entire argument. Your religion wins! Our schools bows to atheism/humanism/secularism, science bows to atheism/humanism/secularism, Universities bows to atheism/humanism/secularism. Our entire government bows to atheism/humanism/secularism! Its wrong!!If there was any truth to that, then churches would be forced to pay their fair share of taxes, and political leaders wouldn't always be trying to seem religious when they run for office.

If schools "bowed" to atheism, then the teachers would be saying that there is no god. Instead, they are supposed to remain neutral about whether there is a god or not.

Some christian support the infanticide ordered by their god with the saying that god was being merciful towards those children by sending them to heaven (by bashing their heads, what a merciful death! )to live on his side for all eternity and worry about the awful effect on those who broke into the caananites' houses to rape and murder with no mercy at all are so moral and righteous, right? (more sarcasm).

Then they have the nerve to say that us - the atheists - are immoral heathens.

Reynold,In case you missed it, we already got Dna to admit many time here that infanticide is justified in his world view. As a matter of fact he said it was good and righteous.

Dan I like how the first image on this post not only has Atheists, Secularists and Humanist, but also Rationalists and Freethinkers, amongst others. It seems rather appropriate for your world view since its so contradictory. You try to use reasoning and rational thought to justify your twisted logic and philosophy but you also condemn using it. If your not a metal zombie that blindly follow the metal script written for you already, you’re a sinner. Though your actions require no reasoning or rational thought, you talk as if it does.

Martian Luther the founder of what lead to the mental comma you willfully submit to said, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd, and false." Also, "That Reason in no way contributes to faith. [...] For reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things."

This means that if any reasoning or rational though is applied to your world view/faith it reveals how absurd it is. This is why you must avoid it at all cost. Reasoning is the greatest enemy of Christianity and Christina faith since it shows how false and impossible its idea and dogmatic foundation it is.

Strangely enough though, Martian Luther went on to make this contradictory statement, “[reason] strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it"

This doesn’t surprise me though, I see you do it all the time here on your blog Dan. You constantly make contradictory statements from thread to thread, yet somehow feel your world view is the most rational one of all. It seems like you just say what you think is needed for each moment to justify your assertions, forgetting the things you said before that completely contradict it. It really wouldn’t matter if it weren’t for the fact that it is often the pillars you use to support your claims and beliefs in the first place.

One last thing Dan, I still want you to explain to me how killing innocent children can be absolutely morally wrong and be good and righteous at the same time in your world view of absolute morals. I’m asking for an explanation Dan, not for you to once again just state the action of killing the innocent Canaanite children wrap in rhetoric to make it sound better.

>>Then they have the nerve to say that us - the atheists - are immoral heathens.

No, but we do say that you cannot account for such things as objective morality that says being immoral (Like baby eating/baby raping) is wrong. You cannot complain about such things because subjective morality, that your worldview demands, is perfectly OK with people raping babies since one's morality is not subject to anyone else. You cannot even say that infanticide ordered by God, is in itself, wrong! At least not in your professed worldview. Once again your worldview is reduced to absurd.

This is not to say that there will be more rapes, like PZ pointed out in his post. But it does say that he cannot account for refraining from doing so.

Speaking of absurd. What cracked me up is what PZ also said: " No slacking allowed, you are all expected to be well-behaved, and the only naughtiness allowed is the delightful, delicious kind."

You're expected to be well-behaved??!! Is PZ your god now? Get in line, atheistic children, and follow the great PZ to OZ! Bwahahahahahha I never thought that PZ was the one that determines what is "delightful, delicious" either. Give us a break! I would think you're all more rational then that nonsense. Maybe not. You're all hilarious. (read sad)

>>This means that if any reasoning or rational though is applied to your world view/faith it reveals how absurd it is.

Well I have admitted in a past post, "If sinners are converted by the intellect (the wisdom of men), they will fall away by the intellect. If they are merely argued into the faith, they will just as easily be argued out of it whenever a respected scholar reports that 'the bones of Jesus" have been found." So yes, reasoning to you that Noah was 900 years old is pointless. This is where trust (faith) comes in. If you are willing to admit that you're not omniscient, then its possible to reason with you that things may exist outside of your knowledge, and maybe you can trust Him more. Its what I hope for anyway.

>>One last thing Dan, I still want you to explain to me how killing innocent children can be absolutely morally wrong and be good and righteous at the same time in your world view of absolute morals.

Why would I attempt to explain anything that is absolute, when you yourself believe that no such a thing exists? Are things wrong for us and not wrong for God? Yes. Can God eat of the tree of knowledge? Yes. Were we allowed to? No. Can God decide how to run the universe? Yes Can we? nope.

We removed Bin Laden from this planet to be with God. Is it wrong for God to do the same to other people? If so why?

And before we address any of this you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. Saying anything God has done as wrong cannot be accounted for within your worldview. So please try to be consistent yourself.

DanNo, but we do say that you cannot account for such things as objective morality that says being immoral (Like baby eating/baby raping) is wrong. You cannot complain about such things because subjective morality, that your worldview demands, is perfectly OK with people raping babies since one's morality is not subject to anyone else.So who's god's morality subject to, then?

Is this whole comment an argument for morality based on "a more powerful being than me will punish me if I do the wrong things"?

I would have thought that true morality would have as it's focus the consideration and point of view of other people and society in general.

Religious people are stuck with the childlike morality of "my parent tells me what's right and wrong".

You cannot even say that infanticide ordered by God, is in itself, wrong! At least not in your professed worldview. Once again your worldview is reduced to absurd.Wrong. It's your worldview that can't say that it's objectively wrong. Why?

Your god ordered it!

Hello???

We removed Bin Laden from this planet to be with God. Is it wrong for God to do the same to other people? If so why?Unlike Bin Laden, those babies, children and pregnant women in the OT haven't bloody done anything!

By the way, why do you refer to yourself in the plural in the header intro to your blog? It's just you running this blog, is it not?

>>No, but we do say that you cannot account for such things as objective morality that says being immoral (Like baby eating/baby raping) is wrong. You cannot complain about such things because subjective morality, that your worldview demands, is perfectly OK with people raping babies since one's morality is not subject to anyone else. You cannot even say that infanticide ordered by God, is in itself, wrong! At least not in your professed worldview. Once again your worldview is reduced to absurd.

Here you are eating your own words again. I saw in many of your comments saying that atheists are immoral, you even accused one of them being pro-rape (I don't know where you got that from, by reading her answers she was clearly against rape).

D.A.N, your way of thinking is misleading. You think just because someone doesn't believe in any gods they can't have moral standards (even my parents, who are what I call hardcore christians, think that statement is absurd). I don't need any gods, any religion/priests/preachers/pastors/or any other religious figure to give me moral guidance. My morality comes in part by what my parents taught me and the other comes from my conscience.

I never killed anyone, never raped anyone, never stole, tortured, kidnapped or harmed anyone in my entire life (because in my worldview all those actions are wrong and despicable). So, if my morality doesn't come from some god, where does it come from them? Could you tell me?

You claimed so many times infanticide is wrong; but when it happens at god's commands you say is righteous and justifiable (here you are eating your own words once again). Your god is playing the good guy - through despicable actions I might add - and you say he's being merciful (instead of an evil bloodthirsty psychopath) and that he didn't slaughter children; he just wanted the children to be on his side in heaven for all eternity, how sweet!!! ((being sarcastic). So - considering your train of thought - you agree with all those suicide bombers and those fundamentalist muslins who flew into the WTC. For you, what they did was justifiable. After all, they killed thousands of people in the name of their god. Allah was merciful because he wanted all those innocent people (children included) to be with him in heaven for all eternity and those terrorists were right at taking those lives. Right?

You say killing people is wrong, but then you say is justifiable when your god commands people to do his dirty job for him. You can't have both ways, my friend. The only worldview that is reduced to absurd is yours.

>> You're expected to be well-behaved??!! Is PZ your god now? Get in line, atheistic children, and follow the great PZ to OZ! Bwahahahahahha I never thought that PZ was the one that determines what is "delightful, delicious" either. Give us a break! I would think you're all more rational then that nonsense. Maybe not. You're all hilarious. (read sad)

So, just because I agree with PZ Myers he's my god now? Really? Where did I say that? PZ Myers was right, but I don't worship or follow him. He's just a human being like me and you D.A.N. But PZ Myers is better than your god (or any other god) because:1st - he's not a mythical creature;2nd - he has a better sense of morality than your god (and yours for that matter).

I will quote Edward Current here that pretty much sums up your reasoning: ,"...logic doesn't work on Christians."

As expected Dan, you didn’t answer any of the questions abut instead try, poorly I might add, to justify you lack of honest or meaningful response with rhetoric.

You said,”This is where trust (faith) comes in.”

Dan, you cannot disguise the idea of blind faith by trying to substitute it with a word we can real world experience to apply. You blindly have faith in your god, I trust my friends because of my previous experience with them.

You go on to say,” If you are willing to admit that you're not omniscient, then its possible to reason with you that things may exist outside of your knowledge, and maybe you can trust Him more”

I never have made a claim that I am omniscient nor that there isn’t things outside of my knowledge. Ignorance or admitting to it in no way adds any support to your claim. Strange you’d even mention this since I constantly point out to you my world view has always started from the point of understanding the limits of my knowledge and only give any validity to things that have supporting evidence. I go where the evidence leads me, you on the other hand have made your decision already and ignore evidence that does support you assumptions and beliefs. That the whole point of what Martin Luther said. You need to blindly accept your belief even when its conflicted by evidence and reason. He even pointed out that religious faith held up against reason shows that it is absurd, impossible and false. Since he believed it was not, then he assumes reason is wrong though it appears to be right. That’s what you demonstrate here daily Dan, you choose to have a faith that conflicts with the tool, reason, you constantly tote as support for your belief.

”Why would I attempt to explain anything that is absolute, when you yourself believe that no such a thing exists?”

I never claimed that nothing can be absolute Dan, You keep putting words into my mouth Dan. What does it matter what I do or do not believe anyway? I’m just asking you to explain since you say Morals are absolute yet you then show it’s OK for man to do something you say is morally wrong, just because your god ask man to violently kill innocent children. How about if I ask nicely? Dan, would you please explain to me how it can be absolutely morally wrong to kill innocent children and good and righteous to kill innocent children at the same time?

”Are things wrong for us and not wrong for God? Yes….”

So you finally admit morals are not absolute! After all those times you’ve told us they are absolute & Objective. Thanks for straightening that out Dan! Infanticide is OK if god kills innocent children or he assigns properly ordained hit men to slaughter the little brats.

”Can God eat of the tree of knowledge? Yes. Were we allowed to? No…”

But he did allow us to slit the throats of those innocent Canaanite children. He not only allowed it, he strongly encouraged us to do his dirty work. If he’ll let us do that, I’m sure we can get a chance for some of that fresh fruit too.

”you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid.”

and

”Saying anything God has done as wrong cannot be accounted for within your worldview.”

My point needs no assumptions Dan, I’m just making observations as to claims you have made. I need to defend nothing, I’m using your world view to examine your world view, and it seems to not be fitting together very well. I just need you to work out the kinks so I can better understand what looks like a really big conflict in your world view and claims you make so often on your blog.

Unless you can explain it to me better, it appears that either morals are not absolute in your world view or it’s OK for you god to do immoral things in a world of absolute morals. Help me out Dan, you’re the one who claims to have a direct line to your omniscient god.

>>You think just because someone doesn't believe in any gods they can't have moral standards

Wrong! First, how do you KNOW what I think? Once again, I am not saying that atheists do not have morals, many do, but I do say you cannot account for things like a conscience and morality. All I am saying is that Atheists have no basis for assuming that their morality, or reasoning, is valid yet they make that assumption. That is why its said that without presupposing God, the position of the atheist is reduced to absurdity. Moving on.

>>I don't need any gods, any religion/priests/preachers/pastors/or any other religious figure to give me moral guidance.

I agree but you are completely LOST without the God given gift of a conscience. Its already in place. My Dad was a corporate/entrepreneur kind of guy. I was raised with him telling me that lying for gain was perfectly fine. I just KNEW that my Dad was wrong. Even though that was what I was taught.

>>I never killed anyone, never raped anyone, never stole, tortured, kidnapped or harmed anyone in my entire life (because in my worldview all those actions are wrong and despicable).

But you have lied because you certainly have harmed me, by not following God. It keeps me up at nights. You are giving me gray hairs and I barely even know you that well. I can imagine how your parents will feel if you make it to that lake of fire. Also, I sure hope its not your claim that you're a good person. That just isn't true...liar. :7)

>>So, if my morality doesn't come from some god, where does it come from them? Could you tell me?

Good question! It does indeed come from God. How do you account for a conscience? God burned knowledge, that lying and stealing are wrong, into your heart.

>>2nd - he has a better sense of morality than your god (and yours for that matter).

Sense of morality? You're missing a major point here. Is morality objective or subjective?

>>You blindly have faith in your god, I trust my friends because of my previous experience with them.

Not so, my previous experience with God allows me to trust him as a friend because He is. Faith is not blind, you're mincing the term of "faith".

>> Dan, would you please explain to me how it can be absolutely morally wrong to kill innocent children and good and righteous to kill innocent children at the same time?

I love how you word it to make it look like a contradiction. There is no contradiction here at all, since the its not at the same time, in the same way, as a contradiction commands. If we kill children we do not have the ability to bring them home to us. God does posses that ability. He can justify His actions, you cannot. Its apples or oranges but its PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE that you believe its on the same plane because you believe the "self" is god. If one believes they are god, as you may, then it follows that you believe you are on the same temporal plane as God. God resides in the eternal plane if you were confused. You will NEVER be on the same grounds as God, as your question implies and outright demands.

>> Wrong! First, how do you KNOW what I think? I do know how you think about atheist being immoral because is what you always say; I've read your comments and previous posts. By saying you never said that, you're lying - not to me - but to yourself.

>> Once again, I am not saying that atheists do not have morals, many do, but I do say you cannot account for things like a conscience and morality. All I am saying is that Atheists have no basis for assuming that their morality, or reasoning, is valid yet they make that assumption. That is why its said that without presupposing God, the position of the atheist is reduced to absurdity. Moving on.

You are the one who can't account for things like morality and conscience. You chose to follow a god who strikes people dead without thinking twice and you say is righteous and justifiable. For me, killing people just for the kicks (like your god likes to do) is far from being righteous and justifiable. Seriously D.A.N, I don't see any difference between your reasoning and the reasoning of suicide bombers; of those who killed innocent people in the crusades and during the inquisition under the justification "it's god's will"

>> I agree but you are completely LOST without the God given gift of a conscience. Its already in place.

The conscience I have is not given by some god; my conscience is the product of how I was raised; my opinions and my life experiences. There are things my parents told me and I didn't think - in my conscience - it was the right thing to do and then I didn't do it; I'm their daughter not their sheep.

>> But you have lied because you certainly have harmed me, by not following God. It keeps me up at nights. You are giving me gray hairs and I barely even know you that well. I can imagine how your parents will feel if you make it to that lake of fire. Also, I sure hope its not your claim that you're a good person. That just isn't true...liar. :7)

Come on Danny!! How come have I lied? And please, stop acting like you are a victim because I'm atheist! That's immature...you are acting like a 3 year old making emotional blackmail just because mommy doesn't wanna buy you some ice cream...grow up! My parents are christians and they pissed me off a lot about me being an atheist. But - thankfully, as time went by - they realized I wasn't going to change for them or anyone else. So, now they accept I'm an atheist and they are pretty proud of me.

Now you tell me I'm not a good person because I don't believe in any gods, I'm not accountable to any invisible deity? Yes - I consider myself to be a good person. I live my life doing the best I can; I do charity and voluntary work just for the sake of doing good (not with the sole interest of having a big piece of heaven with fluffy clouds and a white fence all to myself). And I feel fine with it.

So, please, stop wasting your nights worrying about "me burning in the fiery pit for all eternity" and take a chill pill.

>>Good question! It does indeed come from God. How do you account for a conscience? God burned knowledge, that lying and stealing are wrong, into your heart.If my morality came from god I would be part of The Westboro Baptist Church, lol

>> Is morality objective or subjective? Morality is subjective. What is right for me could be wrong for you and is wrong for me could be right for you. For you, it's right threatening your kids with death by stoning when they rebel against you, for me it's completely wrong. I would never do that to a kid.

The fact you claim that god is always morally correct even when he does something that you think is immoral proves the morality is indeed subjective.

The children were killed in the violent act of war by order of god. Please explain why they should suffer such an experience if god could have transported them directly to heaven. Also, why was their right for life and the pursuit of happiness robbed from them? These are things you say are absolutely morally wrong, yet when its by the order of your god to do a violent act taking away their rights for life you’ll bend over backwards to justify it?

”There is no contradiction here at all, since the its not at the same time, in the same way, as a contradiction commands. If we kill children we do not have the ability to bring them home to us.”

Oh. Its Ok to kill children if god orders it to be done. Its ok to make the children suffer a violent end and to take away their rights, if we can bring them home, even though he had them unnecessarily suffer first. I get it. Morals aren't absolute.

Still Dan, why did he not avoid the pain and suffering for the children and just bring them home himself? Why did he did he have them experience something that to them at the moment of it happening would be a painful, horrific, and immoral act and why are you OK with that?

” He can justify His actions, you cannot.”

Oh I get it, he’s god so if he thinks it ok to make them suffer first, than its ok. I’m not god so if I make them suffer, it’s bad. Still Dan, if making children suffer in such a horrific way that you say is absolutely wrong for man to do, it be absolutely right for god, unless it’s not absolute?

” Its apples or oranges but its PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE that you believe its on the same plane because you believe the "self" is god.”

Hey, I always thought something that is absolutely morally wrong means it is morally wrong absolutely all the time. I guess absolute means something different to you and your god.

” If one believes they are god, as you may, then it follows that you believe you are on the same temporal plane as God. “

What does time have to do god with having man do violent acts on the Canaanite children?

”God resides in the eternal plane if you were confused. You will NEVER be on the same grounds as God, as your question implies and outright demands.”

Dan, when something is absolute wrong, it means it is absolutely wrong. There is no special safety zone where an absolutes can be not absolute too.

If I'm misunderstanding you, please explain How where god is change the fact that he had the hands of men force the experience of seeing and being subjected to great amounts of violence and suffering is OK. You see, that’s what it would be like when man slaughters children in an act of war to wipe out a group.

I almost forgot, that was excluding the woman they wanted to take for themselves. Your god OKed them to do that as long as they were clean women. Taking into consideration that clean women seen as worthy for the taking at that time included what we would consider very young and innocent children. Children who witnessed the killing of their families taken by those horrible men as property.

I’m not sure what is worse, getting killed by the men or being taken as property by the men who killed your family.

Dan, you still have not given an explanation as to how moral are and are not absolute at the same time. All you have done is try to put your god in a special place where its morally ok for him to have done what he did, but if it is ok, you still have the problem of morals being both absolute and subjective at the same time.

If it’s absolutely wrong Dan, it can’t be good and bad to do the same thing to children, no matter who ordered it to be done. The fact your god could have just avoided it by separating them, transporting them directly to heaven, or some other action to allow the innocent to live and pursue life, but instead order man to do violent acts on them seems even more perverse.

Please explain Dan, please explain the pain and suffer of both the murdered and abducted children.

This post seems to cover Dan's and Craig's and the religious people's problem in general:

Religion, by its very nature as an untestable belief in undetectable beings and an unknowable afterlife, disables our reality checks. It ends the conversation. It cuts off inquiry: not only factual inquiry, but moral inquiry. Because God's law trumps human law, people who think they're obeying God can easily get cut off from their own moral instincts. And these moral contortions don't always lie in the realm of theological game-playing. They can have real-world consequences: from genocide to infanticide, from honor killings to abandoned gay children, from burned witches to battered wives to blown-up buildings.

And why? If they're forced to face the fact that their holy books show that their gods are not moral, well, that shoots down their entire belief system and their reason for living.

Doesn't matter. I quoted the wrong part of that article I linked to, which shows the problems with the kind of thinking that Craig, Dan et al show here.

And you can't cut the Gordian knot. You can't simply say, "This is wrong. This is vile and indefensible. This kind of behavior comes from a tribal morality that humanity has evolved beyond, and we should repudiate it without reservation."

Not without relinquishing your faith.

And if you refuse to relinquish your faith? If you cling to the assumption that your faith, by definition, is the highest good there is, and that by definition it trumps all other moral considerations?

It's a shame that your worldview requires you to reject reality but each to his own.

>>Once more, atheism =/= humanism =/= secularism

Of course you would say that.

Of course I would, it's true.

I view it as much like the denominations of Christianity.

Which is, of course, where you're going wrong. There's nothing that requires a humanist or a secularist to be an atheist or an atheist to be either a humanist or a secularist. Your analogy goes wrong from the get go.

I am sure Catholics deny they are Lutheran, and vice versa. My point is that, collectively, they (you) deny God much the same as Lutheran and Catholics collectively acknowledge Christ as Lord.

Wrong, there are plenty of religious folks who believe in the separation of Church and State - that makes them theistic secularists and it screws your argument right up.

My points, although fanatically denied, makes the case well.

If you mean the case that suggests that you misunderstand secularism, humanism and atheism then I would have to agree, if not then I'm unsure as to which case you think you've made...

Yes we are a secular humanistic nation now.

Odd, I thought the demographics showed that your nation is still overwhelmingly Christian?

Does that mean we are to allow one religion over another? Should we allow Islam, and Sharia law, to rule this Government? Of course not! So why should we roll over and allow any other religion to reign?

Did you manage to keep a straight face while you typed that?

Especially yours.

You've still yet to demonstrate any religiosity in the atheist position.

Just because its your religion does not make it a right or good religion.

It's not a religion at all so attempting to say it's a good or bad one is nonsensical.

Your religion is simply destroying this nation.

Atheism isn't a religion and it has no power in your country, let alone the power to destroy.

We are loosing our core values of doing the right thing that once was predominate. Now, since your religion has taken over, we have the Enron, Goldman Sacs, BP, and AIG type of people driving this nation to the ground. It needs to stop.

Are you claiming that each of those companies is led exclusively by atheists? Any evidence to support the claim? Probably not, just like you have no evidence to support your claim that atheism is a religion.

Your religion says there is no accountability but to self.

I don't have a religion so this claim is nonsensical.

Nothing is more selfish then Tony Hayward saying "I'd Like My Life Back" during that oil fiasco. That was because of your selfish religion.

You have evidence that Tony Hayward is an atheist? Also, context, context, context. The full quote is "We're sorry for the massive disruption it's caused to their lives. There's no one who wants this thing over more than I do, I'd like my life back."

So the people with a suppressed conscientious, that were wrongly liberated by your religion,

Word salad...

feel they can do what is good for only the self. Its simply is fundamentally wrong.

Like your claim that atheism is a religion. It's also a strawman, atheistm doesn't posit that you should do only what is good for self. It only states that to call yourself atheist you cannot believe in God(s).

These people get the education from a secular humanistic public school system only to go on to a secular humanistic University with a secular humanistic fields of science and dealing with a secular humanistic Government.

Hayward is English, he went through the English school system. Now, England has a state religion, Church of England (Protestant), so his education was through a Church of England school. Our Government operates under the same state religion. Your point doesn't hold.

>>Yes - I consider myself to be a good person. I live my life doing the best I can; I do charity and voluntary work just for the sake of doing good (not with the sole interest of having a big piece of heaven with fluffy clouds and a white fence all to myself). And I feel fine with it.

Ray has an analogy: "A little girl was once watching a sheep eat grass and thought how white it looked against the green background. But when it began to snow she thought, "That sheep now looks dirty against the white snow!" It was the same sheep, but with a different background. When we compare ourselves to man's standard we look pretty clean, but when we compare ourselves to the pure snow-white righteousness of God's standard—His Law, we can see ourselves in truth, that we are unclean in His sight. That Law is the holy standard by which humanity will be judged on Judgment Day."

We think we are good when we break God's laws daily. I am sure a thief considers himself to be good compared to a rapist and that rapist considers himself good compared to someone that murdered a person and that murderer considers himself a good person compared to a serial killer. I am sure that serial killer considers himself good compared to a democrat. When we compare each other by each others standards we all seem to be good "at least I am not as bad as he is" mentality. We must be compared to the righteous standard of God's Law. If we do that you will simply see that we all fail and all fall short of the righteousness of God. We are simply wicked and wretched sinners and will be judged according to those sins.

God, nor I, want that to happen to you but unfortunately that is your fate. Unless you would like to hear how to avoid such a tragic event, do you?

Because God gave us grace, there is a way to avoid that situation.

If I were to come over to your house and steal your bike, and you caught me, and called the police, and I went to jail, that is justice. Justice is getting what you deserve. If I were to come over to your house and steal your bike, and you caught me, but you did not call the police, and you let me go, that is mercy. Mercy is not getting what you deserve. If I were to come over to your house and steal your bike, and you caught me, and you not only did not call the police, but you forgave me, and you gave me the bike, that is grace. Grace is getting what you do not deserve.

The reason God is gracious to us, has nothing to do with what is in us. Instead, it has everything to do with what is in God: "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," (Romans 5:8) We receive grace because of God's goodness. It is not because we deserve it.

(steps down from milk crate)

>>Morality is subjective.

Really!!?? You went there? If that is actually the case then you can NEVER complain and say that something is ever wrong. It would only be your subjective opinion and not objectively true. So if a man rapes your Mom then you are perfectly OK with it, since that is merely his morality. Congratulations! You have the same viewpoint as Ted Bundy.

>> Also, why was their right for life and the pursuit of happiness robbed from them?

Robbed? Happiness was handed to them. Paradise is the goal after all. It was delivered to them on a platter. Thank God!

>>Still Dan, why did he not avoid the pain and suffering for the children and just bring them home himself?

How do you KNOW He didn't?

>>Why did he did he have them experience something that to them at the moment of it happening would be a painful, horrific, and immoral act and why are you OK with that?

How do you KNOW they experienced any pain at all? Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could, and may have, brought them home without pain or any suffering?

>>How where god is change the fact that he had the hands of men force the experience of seeing and being subjected to great amounts of violence and suffering is OK. You see, that’s what it would be like when man slaughters children in an act of war to wipe out a group.

Valid point that I cannot answer at the moment. The thought of that "vision" would haunt me for my entire life. Maybe that was the purpose of it. I have no clue. Difficult things in the Bible, like these, will just have to wait to be explained to me if I am ever given that blessing. I trust God until then.

>> That “amazing” analogy brought to us by “the amazing and smart” Ray Comfort got old…please…

I can compare my morality towards someone else (human, I mean), but I don’t compare my morality to any other gods because they are a myth and I don’t believe in myths. Comparing my morality to some god’s morality is the same thing that comparing my morality to an elf’s morality.

Besides, your god’s law is not that righteous and just (unless you think is righteous and just to kill homosexuals and non-believers just because your god says so in the bible). When I read the bible and saw what your god demanded people to do in his name I realized he was no different from a sadist psychopath.

>> God, nor I, want that to happen to you but unfortunately that is your fate. Unless you would like to hear how to avoid such a tragic event, do you?

I don’t need to hear how should I avoid the eternal damnation in hell because I’ve heard it all before from my parents’ church friends, from my family and from my parents. I still hear it from some people once in awhile, but you now what I do? I say “Ok” and walk away. The best thing to do in those cases is to ignore because arguing about it doesn’t lead us anywhere. I won’t change my mind because of an empty threat (those people choose to ignore the fact I don’t believe in hell/devil, just like I don’t believe in gods; sometimes I wonder if they are dumb since birth or for majority of votes, but I digress) and they won’t change theirs.

>> The reason God is gracious to us, has nothing to do with what is in us. Instead, it has everything to do with what is in God: "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," (Romans 5:8) We receive grace because of God's goodness. It is not because we deserve it.

God demonstrates his love while he orders men to commit murder, genocide, infanticide and rape in his name. God slaughters people but he loves us…that makes perfect sense (being sarcastic again)

(steps down from milk crate) --- > What is this? You are a manic street preacher? lol

>> Really!!?? You went there? If that is actually the case then you can NEVER complain and say that something is ever wrong. It would only be your subjective opinion and not objectively true.

Of course I can complain about something I consider to be wrong. If I see a lady being mugged on the street I call the police and report it, besides helping the lady. If a man raped my mother I would make sure he would spend most of his life in jail.

Your morality is also subjective. Your morality is not the same as your god’s morality. You don’t agree with killing when man does it; but when god does/orders the killing you perfectly ok with it (because god is being merciful; god works is mysterious ways, etc). As I said before you can’t have both ways: or you agree with murder or you don’t. If you are a bible follower so you should kill every non believer you find, after all is what says in your holy book (2 Chronicles 15:13 That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.)

Your mind works this way D.A.N: “it doesn’t matter what I think; what matters is what my god thinks. My will doesn’t matter, my opinions don’t matter; whatever god says – even though going against my moral standards – is fine by me. He knows what he's doing.”

It’s strange that you see all the despicable acts people do at your god’s commands and you still sugar coat the fact the god you believe in is – in the end – a violent/intolerant/sadist bully.

>>I won’t change my mind because of an empty threat... and they won’t change theirs.

Nice to hear admittance to your adherence to the "religious dogma" of Atheism. :7)

God is indeed good, God shows us what real love is. The difficult things that I don't yet understand is OK. It just means I have question when I see Him. I can't wait to get to know Him more. There will be plenty of time for understanding...for now I trust. We owe Him that.

>> Nice to hear admittance to your adherence to the "religious dogma" of Atheism.

Atheism has no religious dogmas; first because atheism is not religion (you said you were an atheist, so you should know atheism is not religion – unless you pretended to be an atheist for who knows what reason) and second we don’t have dogmas.

Atheists don’t believe in heaven/hell; gods/demons because there’s no evidence to support those beliefs.

When I say to you threatening me saying “you will go to hell forever unless you repent and begin to believe in god” is an empty threat is because they have no evidence.

I’ll ask you two things (the same ones I asked to my family and his friends from their church)

1 – How do you know hell exists? You base your belief in hell because you have some concrete evidence or because some book written by some desert people (saying is the word of god) from the bronze age says there’s a hell?

2 – You say I have to believe in god to go to heaven. Ok…should I believe in Tupã? Oxossi? Poseidon? Anubis? Venus? Baco? Kali? Which one from the different thousands of gods people believe (d)?

3 – No need to say that after that they left me alone, thankfully.

Everytime someone asks you for some evidence to prove your god (and also the devil) exists you quote the bible/say the bible is evidence enough (which is question begging)/dodge the question. If you had any concrete evidence to prove your faith to be true (or even the right one) you wouldn’t need faith to support it.

>> God is indeed good, God shows us what real love is. The difficult things that I don't yet understand is OK. It just means I have question when I see Him. I can't wait to get to know Him more. There will be plenty of time for understanding...for now I trust.

A father who beats the crap out of his children and give them harsh punishments everyday just because he feels like it does that because he loves them? If you think that’s love, you have some twisted idea of what love really is and I don’t even want to imagine how you show your kids and wife how much you love them…

But that’s where lies the danger. People who don’t question things they don’t agree with just because some authority (in your case, god) says is right have a huge chance of fucking things up. You trust some invisible god for no reason but pure blind faith. You don’t have a mind of your own, you don’t think for yourself, according to your worldview you’re not important. If you chose to live your life being a slave of blind faith, ok…but, please don’t expect other people to be just like you.

Human experience of being stabbed with sharp bits of metal? It hurts Dan (unless of course you have a congenital insensitivity to pain).

Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could, and may have, brought them home without pain or any suffering?

I concede one could - I find it extremely unlikely that one did. That would require you to demonstrate such a being exists - without resorting to special pleading, an infinite regress of 'revelations' or the need to be omniscient yourself - can you?

>>Atheists don’t believe in heaven/hell; gods/demons because there’s no evidence to support those beliefs.

And thars the rub. There is ample evidence, all of which you reject! Once again, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.

Your entire atheistic worldview is a FALLACY. Look up 'stacking the deck'

Slam debunked. Moving on.

>>A father who beats the crap out of his children and give them harsh punishments everyday just because he feels like it does that because he loves them?

A Mother that coddles bad behavior of a child is raising a child that turns out to be a Scot Peterson. He was raised with the knowledge that he can do no wrong. He is currently on death row in San Quentin for butchering his pregnant wife and unborn child. Thank God Bush had the leadership (Read, tener cojones) to pass a law that says if you murder a pregnant woman you get charged with two murders. I digress.

No you are sadly mistaken. The Bible is correct. Perfect love is a constant confronter because it takes far more love to confront then to just ignore the situation. You're just wrong but your dogma gets in the way of truth, once again.

>> And thars the rub. There is ample evidence, all of which you reject! Once again, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.

Ok, you say there’s ample evidence for the existence of gods; demons; heaven; hell...so, what are they? Where are they? Tell me...really, I want you to answer me that one – without turning to your holy book – I want concrete evidence. I don’t know why you are so resistant to show those evidences; if you have them so show me...

Saying the bible is evidence for god’s existence because you are a believer is question begging. As I said it before: if you had any evidence to prove your god is real you wouldn’t need faith to support it.

>> A Mother that coddles bad behavior of a child is raising a child that turns out to be a Scot Peterson. He was raised with the knowledge that he can do no wrong. He is currently on death row in San Quentin for butchering his pregnant wife and unborn child. Thank God Bush had the leadership (Read, tener cojones) to pass a law that says if you murder a pregnant woman you get charged with two murders. I digress.

I agree with: parents who do nothing to show their kids they are wrong when they do something bad is not good because they are raising a spoiled brat. But it doesn’t mean they have teach them through beating, spanking or through harsh punishments (like – for example – letting the kid locked in the closet for hours even days without food or threatening to stone them if they disobey)

The only punishments my parents used on me when I did something wrong was taking something I really liked from me for a month (like TV, video games, my favorite toy, my favorite book, internet, not playing outside with other kids, etc…) so I learned that – if I didn’t want to get those punishments again – I would never make the same mistake again. They never beat the crap out of me or even gave me a really harsh punishment and I turned out ok. I’m not some spoiled adult and I’m not a violent bully.

Bush was one of the worst and incompetent presidents in the US history. And I bet – deep down - he must be hating the fact Bin Laden was killed in Obama’s government and not on his (after all the guy was president for 8 years and didn’t find Bin Laden and then in two years of Obama’s presidency Bin Laden is found and killed.)

Funny you mentioning the killing of pregnant women. By what you wrote you don’t agree with it (I don’t agree with either). About being a double homicide – it depends on the stage of pregnancy the woman is and what each US state considers a fetus or embryo to be a human being or not. But your bible endorses the killing of pregnant women.

Here’s one passage: (the last time I checked burning a pregnant woman is murder or attempt to murder in case she doesn’t die)Genesis 38:24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.

D.A.N, you say the bible is a guide for morality. You don’t agree with pregnant women being murdered but your bible endorses that killing. So – if you follow everything your bible says, including in the morality department – you should agree with it. Right? You can’t have both ways: or you agree with murder of pregnant women or you don’t.

In case you don’t know it D.A.N, may 5th is also the National Day of Prayer.

The bible is not evidence for any god whether or not your god exists. I have pointed this out to you countless times before. But you keep trotting out the tired refrain of "because you don't believe god exists." The only one slam debunked here is you.

No, but we do say that you cannot account for such things as objective morality that says being immoral (Like baby eating/baby raping) is wrong. You cannot complain about such things because subjective morality, that your worldview demands, is perfectly OK with people raping babies since one's morality is not subject to anyone else. You cannot even say that infanticide ordered by God, is in itself, wrong! At least not in your professed worldview. Once again your worldview is reduced to absurd.

I think I can see what's going wrong here. And I think this also covers why I find this constant appeal to 'objective' and 'subjective' morality so irritating.

Oh, and just as an aside, I don't expect DAN to respond to this - I'd like to think it's because he finds my comments too challenging, but realistically I think he just gets distracted. Although I haven't forgotten that he once conferred upon me the honour (which it is, in this context) of being 'dangerous'.

First, I'd like to point out (which others have no doubt done already) that subjective morality is not 'okay' with raping or eating babies. The reason is that morality is never an individual matter. It only applies to sentient beings in relation to other sentient beings and their environment. Moral considerations are always relational, because we have to be able to relate to each other, to have a theory of mind, to consider the consequences of our actions upon others, in order to judge whether those effects are positive or negative.

The Christian concept of morality, as a set of rules existing above and beyond real life, denies this relational aspect of morality. It is this denial that allows DAN to claim that slaughtering babies and pregnant women is morally good as long as his god permits it; that allows the likes of Mother Theresa and other ascetics to claim that physical suffering provides the key to elevation of the soul (which has never been demonstrated to exist, by the way); that allows all Christians to accept the doctrine of vicarious atonement that is the heart of Christianity.

No. Human morality cannot be objective. It must be subjective, by virtue of what we are - subjective creatures. Morality can only work when we understand that every human being shares the same subjective faculties - that we are all able to consider the personal consequences of our actions upon other persons...unless we are blinded by belief that there's another moral imperative at stake - the appeasement of an all-powerful, capricious, selfish, vainglorious deity.

>>Moral considerations are always relational, because we have to be able to relate to each other, to have a theory of mind, to consider the consequences of our actions upon others, in order to judge whether those effects are positive or negative.

Have to be able to relate to each other? That is certainly not a subjective statement. You might want to try to be more consistent with your atheistic worldview. That is an "ought" that you cannot account for in that worldview of yours. 'Ought' and 'is' are completely separate. Prescriptive presupposes an authority whose judgment is followed by others.

You STILL cannot complain when someone else has a difference of opinion as to what is moral. Rape is perfectly moral to an extreme evolutionist, as an example. He feels perfectly justified, much like a sea lion, to spread his seed. As Christians, we can say rape is wrong. Its merely a personal choice for you. Its merely a personal choice for you to honor others feelings or care about others. Its merely a whim even to be honorable to others. Its not required or encouraged. Like the example I gave about my own Dad, he was perfectly fine to justify his lying for gain since its "just business." If he made millions off unsuspecting people it would be a "good" thing and he would consider himself successful. Many contractors I know do the same thing. He was very successful in his mind but he was morally bankrupt in my world. Who is right? Both? Nope, he will probably never understand what a drain he was on others and what a horrible perspective it was for doing such things. He will have to learn that when its too late. That is unless God gives me that miracle that I seek.

For you, and your viewpoint, morality is merely a choice that may, or may not, be followed or honored. According to your atheistic worldview it is not wrong to be evil. Its merely a series of choices in one's life. You do not belong to the world, you are merely a world in of itself taking and making choices that pleases the self. Its simply 'moral relativism' which equals sad.

You moral is also relative (and subjective) when you say all the things god did are right even though you don't agree with them. In case of infanticide - for example - you may not agree with it and think it's immoral when man does for the sake of doing it. But when man does it at your god's command or your god does the killing himself you say is justifiable and righteous because your god knows what he's doing.

If that morality of yours is not relative and subjective I don't know what else is.

I don't even need to go that far: the fact you don't agree with your father lying to get money from other people (in your own words "he was very successful in his mind but he was morally bankrupt in my world") while your father is perfectly fine with it already shows morality is subjective and relative.

Have to be able to relate to each other? That is certainly not a subjective statement. You might want to try to be more consistent with your atheistic worldview. That is an "ought" that you cannot account for in that worldview of yours. 'Ought' and 'is' are completely separate. Prescriptive presupposes an authority whose judgment is followed by others.

Sure it's a subjective statement Dan - you're just demonstrating that in this case, you don't understand the difference between subjective (specific to the internal states of a sentient subject) and objective (existing independently of any sentient subject). In particular, in this case, the existence of morality is dependent upon sentient subjects, therefore is not objective - context is important, Dan. Is and ought are separate states of affairs, but whilst you might not be able to derive an 'ought' directly from an 'is', you can't derive any 'ought' at all without the 'is'. The ought, in this case, is the response of a sentient being to the is.

You STILL cannot complain when someone else has a difference of opinion as to what is moral.

Sure I can. If their morality ignores the effects of their actions upon other sentient beings, then I have every right to complain. Their 'ought' might not be taking into account the 'is'. they are entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.

Rape is perfectly moral to an extreme evolutionist, as an example. He feels perfectly justified, much like a sea lion, to spread his seed.

How many 'extreme evolutionists' do you know of, Dan? Do rapists generally plead 'evolutionary imperative' as their defence? If not, on what basis are you justified in making this statement? Your statement also ignores the fact that rape, amongst humans, generally has nothing to do with any desire for reproductive success and everything to do with frustration, hatred and the desire to exert power over the victim. Seems your argument is flawed on all counts here, Dan.

As Christians, we can say rape is wrong.

Actually, you can't. There are Bible passages that condone it, and no explicit condemnation of it. Hey, back in the day, all a Hebrew man had to do to secure a wife was to find a virgin and force himself on her - then she'd be made to marry him. Sounds like endorsement of rape to me. Also, on a more tacit level, Paul exhorts women to 'submit' to their husbands. Doesn't take much to assume this includes sex on demand, whether she wants it or not.

>>I don't even need to go that far: the fact you don't agree with your father lying to get money from other people (in your own words "he was very successful in his mind but he was morally bankrupt in my world") while your father is perfectly fine with it already shows morality is subjective and relative.

OK touché. Maybe I worded that wrong to cause the confusion. My point is that everyone knows that lying is wrong, even my Dad, yet they JUSTIFY it at times in an attempt to clear one's conscience that tells them that lying is wrong. My Dad's, and many executives excuses were that its merely business that inserts the morality of lying is OK but it isn't and they are merely lying to themselves. Better?

>> OK touché. Maybe I worded that wrong to cause the confusion. My point is that everyone knows that lying is wrong, even my Dad, yet they JUSTIFY it at times in an attempt to clear one's conscience that tells them that lying is wrong. My Dad's, and many executives excuses were that its merely business that inserts the morality of lying is OK but it isn't and they are merely lying to themselves. Better?

About lying - it's not black and white. Everybody lies, even you. If you say you don't lie, well...you are lying.

>> My worldview ACCOUNTS for a conscience. Yours cannot or does not.

Having a conscience is not about worldview. I'm an atheist, yes. I'm a secular humanist, yes. But - above all - I'm a human being. I have a conscience and something called empathy. Claiming I can't have or don't have a conscience/morality because I don't believe in gods and don't have a religion is a fallacy. There are a lot of people who are very religious and their sense of morality is twisted (pedophile priests and suicide bombers for example - they believe in god and have a religion so they should have an excellent and impecable sense of morality and conscience, but they don't have, do they? Unless you think is morally correct to sexually abuse the altar boys and blow yourself up inside a restaurant taking as many innocent people possible with you).

You said - and I'll quote - As Christians, we can say rape is wrong.. Wrong. Like Dormant Dragon said - as a christian - you can't. Why? Because your holy book endorses rape.

As a human being who care about other human beings I can - and I am - against rape. I'm against anything that harms any living creature.

It's you who can't account for a conscience, morality or empathy. You say morality is objective when - based on what you say in your posts and comments - it clearly shows your morality is subjective and relative. D.A.N, you can't have two contradictory opinions about something. Or you agree or you don't.

>> Claiming I can't have or don't have a conscience/morality because I don't believe in gods and don't have a religion is a fallacy.

Wow, you really don't get it. Its never my claim that you DO NOT have a conscience. Its always been my claim that your worldview cannot ACCOUNT for it. Howard Huge difference there. In other words, how do you have a justified true belief of a "conscience", within your worldview? Its my belief that your worldview takes for granted the conscience without an account for it. Get it? Of course you have one, because God exists!

>>Why? Because your holy book endorses rape.

It certainly does not! Any evidence for that bare assertion of yours? The Bible is a historical narrative, not an instruction manual as you are claiming here. Just because rapes happened, and was recorded, does not mean they were endorsed/enforced.

>>I'm against anything that harms any living creature.

Is that objective or merely subjective? You cannot complain if other people have a "different" viewpoint then that, because if everything is merely subjective then all opinions are accepted within that worldview of yours. You cannot claim anything as wrong or right, if everything is merely subjective. To say something is wrong is borrowing from my worldview here. Get it?

>> Its always been my claim that your worldview cannot ACCOUNT for it. Howard Huge difference there. In other words, how do you have a justified true belief of a "conscience", within your worldview? Its my belief that your worldview takes for granted the conscience without an account for it. Get it?

And I said having a conscience is not about worldview. I’ll say it again: I’m an atheist but it doesn’t mean just because I don’t need some god/religion to give me moral standards and a conscience that I don’t have or can’t have a conscience and sense of morality. Got it now?

>> Of course you have one, because God exists!

But I don’t believe in gods D.A.N and that includes the god you believe in. For you and your belief someone can’t have a conscience without god. Here you are eating your own words once again. You say I’m not accountable/can’t have a conscience without some god. Just because I have a conscience doesn’t mean god is real. Seriously…

>> It certainly does not! Any evidence for that bare assertion of yours? The Bible is a historical narrative, not an instruction manual as you are claiming here. Just because rapes happened, and was recorded, does not mean they were endorsed/enforced.

Really? Are you sure? Well, let’s see some passages:

1 - Lot offering his two virgin daughters to an angry perverted mob instead of his two visitors so they can do whatever they want with the girls:Genesis:19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

2- Deuteronomy (because being raped is not enough; she has to be punished for not crying loud enough)22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Isaiah: That's endorsing rape...13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

>> The Bible is a historical narrative, not an instruction manual as you are claiming here.

Really? So why you threat your own kids to death by stoning (like it’s said in the OT and NT) when they rebel against you? If that’s not using the bible as an instruction manual on how to raise your kids, I don’t know what else is…

So it also means you don’t use the 10 commandments as a guide on how to live your life?

>> You cannot complain if other people have a "different" viewpoint then that, because if everything is merely subjective then all opinions are accepted within that worldview of yours. You cannot claim anything as wrong or right, if everything is merely subjective

Everybody is entitled to their opinions but I don’t have to agree with them. There are people who thinks is acceptable to stone a cheating wife to death, but I agree with them? No. Do I have the right to complain about it? Yes. I’m not the kind of person who sits on my ass and do nothing when I see something I consider wrong and harmful being made against someone. I actually do something.

I consider wrong a husband beating the crap out of his wife. If I see that happening to a relative, a friend or a neighbor of mine you bet I’ll do something about it, like reporting the husband to the police and help the woman staying away from him.

>> Its always been my claim that your worldview cannot ACCOUNT for it. Howard Huge difference there. In other words, how do you have a justified true belief of a "conscience", within your worldview? Its my belief that your worldview takes for granted the conscience without an account for it. Get it?

And I said having a conscience is not about worldview. I’ll say it again: I’m an atheist but it doesn’t mean just because I don’t need some god/religion to give me moral standards and a conscience that I don’t have or can’t have a conscience and sense of morality. Got it now?

>> Of course you have one, because God exists!

But I don’t believe in gods D.A.N and that includes the god you believe in. For you and your belief someone can’t have a conscience without god. Here you are eating your own words once again. You say I’m not accountable/can’t have a conscience without some god. Just because I have a conscience doesn’t mean god is real. Seriously…

>> It certainly does not! Any evidence for that bare assertion of yours? The Bible is a historical narrative, not an instruction manual as you are claiming here. Just because rapes happened, and was recorded, does not mean they were endorsed/enforced.

Really? Are you sure? Well, let’s see some passages:

1 - Lot offering his two virgin daughters to an angry perverted mob instead of his two visitors so they can do whatever they want with the girls:Genesis:19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

2- Deuteronomy (because being raped is not enough; she has to be punished for not crying loud enough)22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Isaiah: That's endorsing rape...13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

>> The Bible is a historical narrative, not an instruction manual as you are claiming here.

Really? So why you threat your own kids to death by stoning (like it’s said in the OT and NT) when they rebel against you? If that’s not using the bible as an instruction manual on how to raise your kids, I don’t know what else is…

So it also means you don’t use the 10 commandments as a guide on how to live your life?

>> You cannot complain if other people have a "different" viewpoint then that, because if everything is merely subjective then all opinions are accepted within that worldview of yours. You cannot claim anything as wrong or right, if everything is merely subjective

Everybody is entitled to their opinions but I don’t have to agree with them. There are people who thinks is acceptable to stone a cheating wife to death, but I agree with them? No. Do I have the right to complain about it? Yes. I’m not the kind of person who sits on my ass and do nothing when I see something I consider wrong and harmful being made against someone. I actually do something.

I consider wrong a husband beating the crap out of his wife. If I see that happening to a relative, a friend or a neighbor of mine you bet I’ll do something about it, like reporting the husband to the police and help the woman staying away from him.

>> Its always been my claim that your worldview cannot ACCOUNT for it. Howard Huge difference there. In other words, how do you have a justified true belief of a "conscience", within your worldview? Its my belief that your worldview takes for granted the conscience without an account for it. Get it?

And I said having a conscience is not about worldview. I’ll say it again: I’m an atheist but it doesn’t mean just because I don’t need some god/religion to give me moral standards and a conscience that I don’t have or can’t have a conscience and sense of morality. Got it now?

>> Of course you have one, because God exists!

But I don’t believe in gods D.A.N and that includes the god you believe in. For you and your belief someone can’t have a conscience without god. Here you are eating your own words once again. You say I’m not accountable/can’t have a conscience without some god. Just because I have a conscience doesn’t mean god is real. Seriously…

>> It certainly does not! Any evidence for that bare assertion of yours? The Bible is a historical narrative, not an instruction manual as you are claiming here. Just because rapes happened, and was recorded, does not mean they were endorsed/enforced.

Really? Are you sure? Well, let’s see some passages:

1 - Lot offering his two virgin daughters to an angry perverted mob instead of his two visitors so they can do whatever they want with the girls:Genesis:19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

2- Deuteronomy (because being raped is not enough; she has to be punished for not crying loud enough)22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

3 - Isaiah: That's endorsing rape...13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

>> The Bible is a historical narrative, not an instruction manual as you are claiming here.

Really? So why you threat your own kids to death by stoning (like it’s said in the OT and NT) when they rebel against you? If that’s not using the bible as an instruction manual on how to raise your kids, I don’t know what else is…

So it also means you don’t use the 10 commandments as a guide on how to live your life?

>> You cannot complain if other people have a "different" viewpoint then that, because if everything is merely subjective then all opinions are accepted within that worldview of yours. You cannot claim anything as wrong or right, if everything is merely subjective

Everybody is entitled to their opinions but I don’t have to agree with them. There are people who thinks is acceptable to stone a cheating wife to death, but I agree with them? No. Do I have the right to complain about it? Yes. I’m not the kind of person who sits on my ass and do nothing when I see something I consider wrong and harmful being made against someone. I actually do something.

I consider wrong a husband beating the crap out of his wife. If I see that happening to a relative, a friend or a neighbor of mine you bet I’ll do something about it, like reporting the husband to the police and help the woman staying away from him.

DanIs that objective or merely subjective? You cannot complain if other people have a "different" viewpoint then that, because if everything is merely subjective then all opinions are accepted within that worldview of yours.

Not necesarily. There's consesnus rules. Like, killing babies once they're out of the womb, at least. Little things that large groups of people have figured out that they need to do to try to keep their societies going.

On the other hand killing babies? That's something that biblegod and his believers don't have any problems against.

Yep, and they claim to have the basis for "absolute morality"!

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

You cannot claim anything as wrong or right, if everything is merely subjective. To say something is wrong is borrowing from my worldview here. Get it?Bullshit, Dan. Societies have made all sorts of rules both before the development of, and before they ran into the judeo-xian culture.

As I said earlier: assertions without evidence.

Hey Dan, since you claim that the basis for what's right and wrong is exclusively from your worldview then I guess that xians have no choice but to take responsibility for those who followed the biblical command of "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", eh?

Hey, Dan...aren't you going to say anything about your fellow religionist Vox Day claiming that there is no such thing as marital rape?

Remember, it's you as christians who claim to be able to justify the belief that rape is wrong, yet a fellow religionist of yours seems to be a rape denialist.

What about the taking of the Midianite women who were virgins for the ancient Israelite soldiers? And the killing of all the other people? What the hell was that? And remember: That was not just "described", that was proscribed by biblegod himself!

At least us "evolutionists"/atheists and just fucking normal people have all sorts of reasons to oppose rape... you know: empathy, consequences for the victims and their future well-being, societal order and what happens to any kids who are born as a result of it, etc.

It certainly does not! Any evidence for that bare assertion of yours? The Bible is a historical narrative, not an instruction manual as you are claiming here. Just because rapes happened, and was recorded, does not mean they were endorsed/enforced.

You must be running out of room in your too-hard basket by now, Dan.

You say the Bible is just an historical narrative, huh? So your God didn't hand down all those rules enumerated in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (one of which was the one I mentioned earlier, in support of my claim that the Bible endorses rape - ie: the one about a man raping a virgin and thereby gaining a wife), and Jesus didn't exhort his followers to keep the law? And Paul didn't tell women to submit to their husbands? What are these things purporting to be if not moral instruction?

Point 1. Yes that IS what happened. I could not imagine a situation that I myself would do that but there it is...as truth. Those same girls took advantage of their father. IS that condoned too? It clearly says NO in Leviticus. So then its a historical narrative like I said, not as you claim.

Point 2. If you do not FIGHT evil then its as if you condone it / coddle it. She should of screamed and fought back. If she gives herself to evil she is evil herself. Think of Eve with this one. She placed herself in the judges seat and put God on trial. That is evil.

Point 3. Fail #3 Your quote mine of Isaiah 13:16 was obvious. It even reads as a poem. Look at the spacing and form of the words. Its not INSTRUCTIONS as you are claiming. You do understand that this entire thing was a dream of Isaiah's. Just read Isaiah 1:1

Point 4.>>So why you threat your own kids to death by stoning (like it’s said in the OT and NT) when they rebel against you? If that’s not using the bible as an instruction manual on how to raise your kids, I don’t know what else is…

I do not stone my kids because I have hope for them still (they're babies). If one of my children grew up to be a spit in God's face joyful pedophile of the highest evil...I just might consider that option. Plus I count on the 'good tree will bear good fruit' thingy. If my kid is evil then it speaks volumes of myself. Stoning myself would be the option I would consider in that case.

>>Everybody is entitled to their opinions but I don’t have to agree with them.

YOU SEE? Right there you say that everyone is entitled to do something. Its NOT true! They are NOT entitled to do things that are evil in God eyes. The are held to a very high standard, in that no one will escape that Judgment. Just because someone likes to rape girls does not make it OK just because that is how they CHOOSE to live. In your "matter and motion" world there is no RECOURSE to the person doing such things and never getting caught by us fallible humans. In your eyes they're "successful" in living as they wish to live. As a pedophile rapist. Michael Jackson was a fine individual that did great things in this world from your perspective. If not caught, then success. That is all your worldview has to offer. Complacency when evil.

>> There are people who thinks is acceptable to stone a cheating wife to death, but I agree with them? No.

You cannot complain if its just everyone's opinions are subjective though. You cannot stand on an authority to say NO that is wrong. What is wrong for you may be right for another. You have no say as to what is right or wrong, just what is right for YOU only. It may be wrong for you but that is not to say its wrong for everyone. This is the world YOU THINK exists. You cannot complain about any evil. WE CAN. A pedophile to you is just someone else's opinion to rape a kid and live that way (since everyone has different opinions), to me its evil. To me its objectively wrong. You CANNOT say that (in your worldview). Something is inherently wrong (read absurd) with a worldview, if that IS the case. It IS with yours.

>>I consider wrong a husband beating the crap out of his wife.

HOW????? For you you mean? Fine we get that. It may be great for another couple. She may be a rebellious wife that needs "correcting" once in a while. You CANNOT ever say its WRONG. Just that you wish not to live that way.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are not the opinions of the Marvins and are no way meant to be the expression of us as a family. These are merely scenarios thrown out to make points in a debate or discussion. Please no quote mining that I like to beat woman please. :7)

>>Hey Dan, since you claim that the basis for what's right and wrong is exclusively from your worldview then I guess that xians have no choice but to take responsibility for those who followed the biblical command of "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", eh?

Once again. Evil exists. Burning people as an ethnic cleansing, like in Rwanda, is wrong. Objectively wrong. Priests molesting children is wrong. Objectively wrong. You cannot claim that same thing since you believe there is no objective morality. Its jsut appeal to popularity in HOPES everyone is pleased. If that same populace believes that burning "religious" people is OK then you are fine with it. You are a mere feather in the wind.

>>Dan...aren't you going to say anything about your fellow religionist Vox Day claiming that there is no such thing as marital rape?

You do understand that reasoning is fallacious once again. Argumentum ad populum

Just because someone does something, or believes in something, does not mean its right. Many priest thought it was fine to molest children. Does that make it right? Nope. You might want to clear up your fallacies and then return back here.

Something did come to mind though. Can you rape yourself? You know, as it says in the marital vows that "two become one flesh" (Mark 10:8) I did not read the particulars on it to care enough but I am one to believe that if a man or woman is refusing to be with the spouse in extended periods of time that something much deeper is wrong (adultery, infidelity). Relations are for expressing love to one another. If one is rejecting the other I would think the couch is very comfortable in that case. People do get divorced, you do understand. Forcing yourself on an soon to be ex is certainly rape. I am obligated to give my body to my wife though. If you don't wish to, get out of the marriage because you are violating the covenant with your spouse.

That is a fallacious argument, its called appeal to popularity.You don't have a clue about how logical thinking works. Those rules are set up to determine the accuracy of claims about reality, not about how people should act.

Like it or not, consensus rules, plus all the moral reasons I gave earlier are how varous non-xian societies have established rules.

You do understand that reasoning is fallacious once again. Argumentum ad populum

Just because someone does something, or believes in something, does not mean its right.At least you renounce the man. Thing is, can you do it BIBLICALLY?

Many priest thought it was fine to molest children.Does that make it right? Nope. You might want to clear up your fallacies and then return back here.At least we agree here. So, what biblical commands are there against what they've done? I'm sure in this case there is something, at least!

Relations are for expressing love to one another. If one is rejecting the other I would think the couch is very comfortable in that case. People do get divorced, you do understand.You're kidding me!

Forcing yourself on an soon to be ex is certainly rape.Again, if that's a moral belief of yours and you use the bible as your source of "morality", let's see some biblical justification.

I am obligated to give my body to my wife though. If you don't wish to, get out of the marriage because you are violating the covenant with your spouse.So, are you actually agreeing with that son of a bitch after all?? Huh??

And look what you say here:>>Hey Dan, since you claim that the basis for what's right and wrong is exclusively from your worldview then I guess that xians have no choice but to take responsibility for those who followed the biblical command of "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", eh?

Priests molesting children is wrong. Objectively wrong. You cannot claim that same thing since you believe there is no objective morality.Wrong. I can claim the same thing, since all I have to do is look at the pain and suffering of the victims, the societal consequences of the actions, etc.

Again, those same little factors you keep ignoring?

Its just appeal to popularity in HOPES everyone is pleased.Only if you ignore things like empathy, consequences, etc. which of course, you do...

If that same populace believes that burning "religious" people is OK then you are fine with it.No, you idiot...Why? For the same reasons that I keep giving and that you keep ignoring. You know: pain and suffering of the victims, empathy, etc.

You are a mere feather in the wind.You're a dishonest debator who keeps ignoring relevant points that I point out.

You completely ignored the fact that the instance (taking of the Midianite virgins) I pointed out was an actual biblical command from biblegod himself!

Yet again you claim "objective reality", yet once again when I point out an actual instance of killings etc. ordered by your god, you ignore it and keep harping on about how it's us who have no right to claim that something is wrong.

I'll note that while you do so, you have yet again ignored all the reasons that I gave for why people have established rules of conduct without your holy book.

Hey Dan, since you claim that the basis for what's right and wrong is exclusively from your worldview then I guess that xians have no choice but to take responsibility for those who followed the biblical command of "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", eh?

Once again. Evil exists. Burning people as an ethnic cleansing, like in Rwanda, is wrong. Objectively wrong. Priests molesting children is wrong. Objectively wrong.Tell that to apologists like William Lane Craig. He and others like him have no problem defending god-ordained genocide, so it turns out that it's you are the one who cannot claim "absolute morality".

I notice that you've ignored the fact that killing witches was endorsed by your god, and have said nothing about the xians who used to do that. Yet they were only using your reasoning that your god is the source of "objective morality". They were following his "moral" commands.

You cannot claim that same thing since you believe there is no objective morality.Baloney. There's that whole thinking about the pain and suffering of the victims thing going on, as well as societal consequences and our sense of empathy.

Its just appeal to popularity in HOPES everyone is pleased.As I've shown, it isn't "just" that.

If that same populace believes that burning "religious" people is OK then you are fine with it.No I wouldn't. Why? Because of that whole "suffering of the victims" thing and empathy I mentioned earlier.

Dan, if you were tied to a stake and burning alive, would you be comforted by the thought that most of the people hanging around were not only enjoying watching you fry, but believed it was just on account of you having different beliefs to them?

Welcome to the world of many an accused 'witch' or heretic in past ages when the Western world was more like you apparently think it should be.

Empathy is about the ability to appreciate that others are sufficiently similar to you in certain ways that their experiences and emotions in certain circumstances would resemble your own. If you think you would experience pain and despair whilst burning alive, then it's a pretty safe bet that pretty much any other person is similar enough to you that they would experience the same things. As sentient beings, we experience those things as bad. Ergo, it's bad to inflict them on others because we see them as bad.

Enlightenment values hold that a difference of belief is not sufficient grounds for inflicting catastrophically bad things - like death by burning - on others, because their difference of belief doesn't make the other person different enough to you that they wouldn't suffer from such an action.

Got it?

And whilst it may not be wrong to lack empathy - since this may well be the result of a mental disability over which the person has no control - we generally refer to such people as sociopaths or psychopaths and lock them up for the safety of everyone else. And before you claim that this is just a matter of subjective preference (and who wouldn't prefer not to be murdered?) locking someone up does them less harm than they would otherwise inflict on other folk.

If subjective morality meant the same thing as absolute moral relativism, which you appear to be claiming, then we'd have no reason to lock up psychopaths, because of our subjective preference for not being violently killed wouldn't matter at all when weighed against this one person's inability to empathise.

>> For example: I’m walking alone in a street at night. Then some guy grabs me, push me to the floor, climbs on top of me and puts a knife into my throat and says: “If you scream I’ll kill you.”. I’m scared to death and I don’t want to die, so I don’t scream and he rapes me. So, I was – somehow – partially guilt of my own rape? I gave myself to evil? Is that what you think?

>> An analogy about Adam and Eve’s myth: I have two small kids, around 6 years old.I bought a lot of candies and chocolate and I put them in a bowl. I put this bowl on the table – where my kids can see it – but I tell them not to touch. If they do, they will be punished. But, they are kids. Kids are curious and they like candies. So – one of them can’t help it and takes two chocolate bars from the bowl. This kid eats one and give the other bar to the other kid. Somehow I found out they ate some candies and because of it I punish them (for example, a month without watching TV). But here’s the thing. I know how kids are; if I didn’t want them to eat the candies I shouldn’t have placed the bowl where they can see it in the first place. So, I was responsible for their disobedience.The same thing with god. Adam, and Eve were like those kids. If he didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge, so why he put the tree in the garden of eden in the first place? If god knows everything, so he did now what would happen and he did nothing to prevent it. He was responsible for their fall (the same way he was partially responsible for Cain killing his brother.). Your god has some sick sense of humor.

>> It’s always funny the fact you – hardcore Christians – always make some excuses to sugarcoat the fact your god is an evil character capable of terrible things and that the bible you follow is actually a guide on how to do those despicable acts.

>> No, I said EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINIONS! You are distorting my words. For example: you don’t have to like homosexuals and you can think they are sinners. It’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. But beating the crap out of a gay person because you don’t like gays that’s something you can’t do.

>> You act like only christians can complain about evil. Well, they are not the only ones. I can complain about something that is wrong and evil because I care and it’s my right to do it. I’m not some cold blooded sociopath.Being able to prevent something bad to happen – when possible – is inherent from everyone who cares and have empathy towards other people. Not only christians are like that. I know a person – who is a christian – who practically lives inside the church (she goes there everyday, she confesses and takes the holy communion, etc.) but she’s a despicable person. She steals and treats her daughter like crap. I saved her daughter from her many times. Now, who is the good and the bad person here? The mother is a good person just because she believes in god? And me – who helped her daughter more times I can count – I am evil because I’m atheist? Her daughter will think different from you.

>>Correcting? D.A.N, no human being deserves to be “corrected” by spanking. A wife is not the husband’s property. The reason he beat the crap out of her is because he was an alcoholic and a bastard bully (he used to beat his own mother and sister). Once he broke his wife’s arm in two places because she burned the rice. Is that a motive? She was rebellious because of burned food? Thankfully – to me, in part - she took the kids and left him, for good. If she didn’t do it she would probably be dead by now.I hope you don’t “correct” your wife once in awhile.

@bellecherie did you say Women aren't property of their husbands? Good luck convincing Dan of that. He follows the moral teachings of the Bible, remember?

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Exodus 20:17

“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows." Exodus 21:22

"If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her." Numbers 30:6-8

Once again. Evil exists. Burning people as an ethnic cleansing, like in Rwanda, is wrong.

Unless your God demands it of course - and according to your bible he has commanded/committed genocide on several occasions.

Objectively wrong.

It is, but as a Christian you have no way to make this claim. If morality is truly objective then it cannot be founded in any conciousness - and that includes the conciousness of your God. Your God would instead be subject to the same moral constraints as the rest of us and I don't think you'd be happy with the logical implications of that. If you insist that morality is founded in your God then you've destroyed it's objectivity and made it the subjective whim of your deity.

Priests molesting children is wrong.

I would say anyone molesting children is wrong, not just priests, but then, unlike you I actually do believe in objective morality. You would be forced to claim that molesting children is good and righteous should your God demand it, as you believe that might makes right.

Objectively wrong.

Again you have no way to make this claim.

You cannot claim that same thing since you believe there is no objective morality.

I cannot speak for Reynold but I believe there is objective morality i.e. morality not rooted in any conciousness (this is, after all, what objective means)

Its jsut appeal to popularity in HOPES everyone is pleased.

I don't appeal to any popularity but instead base the morality of an action on objective standards. They may be very difficult to quantify/measure i.e. how to measure 'harm', but that doesn't make them whims. Your morality, however, boils down to 'might makes right' and the only way you can show we are subject to the same rules is if you can demonstrate that the deity you believe holds the power actually exists to enforce the rules - something you've singularly failed to do.

If that same populace believes that burning "religious" people is OK then you are fine with it.

I wouldn't be. Burning anyone for holding differing beliefs would be wrong. Of course if your God commanded burning people, and, as He has commanded killing people before this wouldn't be too much of a stretch, means you must think it's good and righteous ... right? If not then you don't actually subscribe to the morality espoused by the worldview you claim to hold.

>> Your quote mine of Isaiah 13:16 was obvious. It even reads as a poem. Look at the spacing and form of the words. Its not INSTRUCTIONS as you are claiming. You do understand that this entire thing was a dream of Isaiah's. Just read Isaiah 1:1

So, because it was written as a poem and it was Isaiah’s dream it makes less terrible? Well, it doesn’t. For example, someone writing a poem, flowering the words about a dream he had where he and his army killed all the men of a tribe and raped all the virgins doesn’t make it less terrible and despicable, sorry (here you are sugarcoating again…)

>> Something did come to mind though. Can you rape yourself? What? Does that suppose to make sense? facepalm

>>I did not read the particulars on it to care enough but I am one to believe that if a man or woman is refusing to be with the spouse in extended periods of time that something much deeper is wrong (adultery, infidelity). Relations are for expressing love to one another. If one is rejecting the other I would think the couch is very comfortable in that case. People do get divorced, you do understand. Forcing yourself on an soon to be ex is certainly rape. I am obligated to give my body to my wife though. If you don't wish to, get out of the marriage because you are violating the covenant with your spouse.

D.A.N, there are lot of reasons why a spouse doesn’t want to have sex with the other. Adultery is one of the causes, yes…but is not the only one. Maybe the husband doesn’t love the wife anymore (or vice-versa). Maybe one of them (or both) don’t feel sexually/physically attracted to each other anymore. There’s also sexual impotency (where it doesn’t matter how much the wife and the husband are in love with one another, one of them simply can’t get the thing going – for several reasons such as stress, smoking, alcohol or some other drug addiction, etc). Maybe their sex life felt in the routine and they need some spice to improve it.

>>Dan, if you were tied to a stake and burning alive, would you be comforted by the thought that most of the people hanging around were not only enjoying watching you fry, but believed it was just on account of you having different beliefs to them?

Actually I would be comforted by the fact I would, God willing, not burn (Daniel 3:27)

>>Ergo, it's bad to inflict them on others because we see them as bad.

But what makes bad bad and good good? Could bad be good? Some people like to set kittens on fire. Is that wrong? If so, how? If that is what makes him feel good (pain of others) is that not the goal if this world is ALL we have? Why not maximize one's enjoyment? Many wall street people have great joy in duping others out of their cash. Is that wrong? If so, how?

>>And whilst it may not be wrong to lack empathy...

OK so you admit that its not wrong to do these things. Wow.

So you're saying empathy is REQUIRED to live in a society? Empathy is recognized as a UNIVERSAL good in a society? Just its not objectively good? Hmm.

>>If subjective morality meant the same thing as absolute moral relativism, which you appear to be claiming, then we'd have no reason to lock up psychopaths, because of our subjective preference for not being violently killed wouldn't matter at all when weighed against this one person's inability to empathise.

Well that is the thrust of the point I am making here. Subjective morality and moral relativism are not polar opposites by any stretch here.

Subjective Morals: Morals derived from an individual's own personal preferences, tastes, desires and whims. They are neither right nor wrong, as it is a mere opinion. Same as moral relativism.

What you may be relating to is Normative relativism. Which is the prescriptive or normative position that, because there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others - even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.

But your stickler here is the ought part. Nothing in an atheistic worldview can point to an ought. Its all mater, motion, and ending.

My worldview can certainly say things like ought, right, and wrong. You, not so much.

>>But here’s the thing. I know how kids are; if I didn’t want them to eat the candies I shouldn’t have placed the bowl where they can see it in the first place. So, I was responsible for their disobedience.

Wow! You are absolutely wrong. My kids would not take the chocolate. Why? Because I said so.

Do you hide your keys in hopes that your kids will not find them and get out and start the car? I don't I say "don't touch my keys" and they don't They honor the 5th Commandment. "Kids will be kids" is a fine example of what a bad parent would say. If you do, you are. Kids NEED direction. Without it they will fail. Either they will obey you when you say do not run out in the street, or they will obey the grill of the truck that hits them when they do. I would much rather them feel my wrath for not honoring me, then they find out for themselves in this very cruel and unforgiving world.

>>You act like only christians can complain about evil. Well, they are not the only ones.

Maybe, but we are the only ones that can account for evil. Your atheistic worldview certainly cannot without borrowing from mine.

>>If god knows everything, so he did now what would happen and he did nothing to prevent it. He was responsible for their fall (the same way he was partially responsible for Cain killing his brother.).

Well, with free will there MUST be a choice to choose evil. Give your kids the keys to the car and say do whatever you want. They may choose to harm themselves and others (evil), they may choose not to drive until they learn how (good). Without that guiding hand of the father/parent they would gravitate towards evil. Like Eve did. What you are describing to is a world WITHOUT free will and bondage. God is so good He will give you that someday. Its called Hell.

>>Correcting? D.A.N, no human being deserves to be “corrected” by spanking.

How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

>>I hope you don’t “correct” your wife once in awhile.

I certainly do. Just not how you think. Certainly not by spanking or any physical punishment. She is an adult and deserves the meat (leadership/reasoning), not milk (spanking). Perfect love is a constant confronter after all.

>>So, because it was written as a poem and it was Isaiah’s dream it makes less terrible? No, it doesn't...

It makes it less INSTRUCTIONAL as you said it was. Don't try to change the subject.

>>D.A.N, there are lot of reasons why a spouse doesn’t want to have sex with the other.

This argument commits the fallacy of "irrelevant thesis." The point I made was " Relations are for expressing love to one another." When that is no longer a desire, impotency can still have desire to do so, then the relationship is in jeopardy. Forcing relations would only complicate this point, was my point.

It states or "anything that belongs to your neighbor" NOT "or anything else that belongs to your neighbor. You're funny.

And Exodus 21:22 is for the husband to defend and come to the aid of his wife. I am sure you want the victim to discuss things with the rapist but in our world we consider that to be twice victimized. We even have rape-shield laws but I don't see you complaining about those. Your bias is so very obvious.

>>I would say anyone molesting children is wrong, not just priests, but then, unlike you I actually do believe in objective morality.

Touché but shame on you for making a point that I believe ONLY raping priests is wrong. It was used as a mere example, but I will take the dig.

BTW, don't think for one second I didn't notice you admitting to objective morality. With an atheistic worldview that would be impossible no matter if you are in the 'cult of Dawson' (Bahnsen Burner) or not.

>>You would be forced to claim that molesting children is good and righteous should your God demand it, as you believe that might makes right.

Absolutely not!! You and I seem to be in disagreement with regards to the meaning of ‘omnipotent’. Omnipotence simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do evil, as Good is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God.

>> Don’t expect your kids will obey you always. I was a kid and a teenager once, so I know how things are. There were situations where I listened to my parents and other situations I didn’t. Kids and teenagers have the tendency to not listen to their parents when they don’t want to. I was a kid and a teenager once, so I know how things are. There were situations where I listened to my parents and other situations I did things my parents told me not to do because my curiosity and temptation (not in the religious meaning of the word) was bigger. I’m their daughter, not a sheep. If I listened to my parents all the time and didn’t do some of the things I wanted I wouldn’t be the person I’m today. (again, don’t worry…it was nothing illegal or harmful).

I know kids need some direction. But they are not sheeps. They have the free will to listen to you or not. And besides you don’t keep eye on your children 24x7 – and besides kids have the amazing ability to hide things from their parents. Sometimes, kids need to learn on their own. You can’t treat your kids like they live in a bubble. If you do, they will never learn how to live their lives for themselves and when you and you wife die (after all you’re not immortal) they will be totally lost and clueless on what to do next.

>> Well, with free will there MUST be a choice to choose evil. (…)God is so good He will give you that someday. Its called Hell.

But that’s thing. Free will in the christian concept is just an illusion. You say we have the freedom to do whatever we want as long as it doesn’t go against god’s rules and will. And if we do – like doubting his existence for example – we are punished. That’s not free will. Your god knew Eve would eat the fruit, so why he didn’t prevent it from happening? He knew Cain was already jealous of Abel and took advantage of that by preferring Abel’s offer and denying Cain’s. Your all-knowing god knew Cain would kill Abel in a jealous-rage rampage. Why he didn’t do anything to prevent it? Because he’s a sadist prankster. The god you believe in treat you like a paw in a twisted chess game.God is so good that he will condemn me to hell? That’s just wacky and funny...kkkkkkk

>> How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

I know that “correcting” someone by spanking is wrong because I’ve seen it how bad it is. An acquaintance of mine was beaten by her husband. The reason he beat the crap out of her is because he was an alcoholic and a bastard bully (he used to beat his own mother and sister). Once he broke his wife’s arm in two places because she burned the rice. Thankfully – to me, in part - she took the kids and left him, for good. If she didn’t do it she would probably be dead by now.

>> It makes it less INSTRUCTIONAL as you said it was. Don't try to change the subject.

Less instructional? So it was an instructional dream then? I didn’t change the subject. I said that the fact it was poem of a dream it doesn’t make rape less terrible.

>> You wrote If you do not FIGHT evil then its as if you condone it / coddle it. She should of screamed and fought back. If she gives herself to evil she is evil herself. Think of Eve with this one. She placed herself in the judges seat and put God on trial. That is evil.

I really want you to answer me this one: For example: I’m walking alone in a street at night. Then some guy grabs me, pushes me to the floor, climbs on top of me and puts a knife into my throat and says: “If you scream I’ll kill you.” I’m scared to death and I don’t want to die, so I don’t scream/don’t fight back and he rapes me. So, I was – somehow – partially guilt of my own rape? I gave myself to evil? Is that what you think?

Actually I would be comforted by the fact I would, God willing, not burn (Daniel 3:27)

And fortunately for your uniquely naive claim here, you'll probably never have to test it - thanks to Enlightenment values.

Ergo, it's bad to inflict them on others because we see them as bad.

But what makes bad bad and good good?

Our subjective experience - something common to all sentient beings, and therefore a common ground on which to build morality.

Could bad be good?

Only according to dogmatic religions that revere martyrdom and hold an instrument of torture as an object of devotion.

Some people like to set kittens on fire. Is that wrong? If so, how? If that is what makes him feel good (pain of others) is that not the goal if this world is ALL we have?

If a kitten is a sentient being - which it is in the most fundamental sense of sentience - then harming it and causing to suffer is as bad as causing any other sentient being to suffer. If it's bad to set babies on fire, it's bad to set kittens on fire. Pleasure bought at the expense of catastrophic pain to another is unworthy of the name of pleasure.

Why not maximize one's enjoyment? Many wall street people have great joy in duping others out of their cash. Is that wrong? If so, how?

And if the situation were reversed, would those Wall Street swindlers be congratulating those who had duped them out of their cash? The whole point of empathy is that you can place yourself in another's position, and act towards them as you would want others to act towards you. Didn't your god-man help to popularise this idea?

So you're saying empathy is REQUIRED to live in a society? Empathy is recognized as a UNIVERSAL good in a society? Just its not objectively good? Hmm.

How can empathy be objective? It requires you to have feelings, imagination and the ability to imagine and internalise the feelings of others. It couldn't exist if we were not subjective beings, and nor would it be necessary.

Well that is the thrust of the point I am making here. Subjective morality and moral relativism are not polar opposites by any stretch here.

Never claimed they were. Subjective morality is what normal humans exhibit; moral relativism is what you espouse - morality is relative to whether you're human or god.

But your stickler here is the ought part. Nothing in an atheistic worldview can point to an ought. Its all mater, motion, and ending.

So the fact that our lives end makes them unimportant, to us, while they last?

My worldview can certainly say things like ought, right, and wrong.

But only based upon the dictates of ancient Middle Eastern texts, because you lack the imagination to realise your own morals.

>>I would say anyone molesting children is wrong, not just priests, but then, unlike you I actually do believe in objective morality.

Touché but shame on you for making a point that I believe ONLY raping priests is wrong. It was used as a mere example, but I will take the dig.

I didn't say anything about only raping priests being right or wrong, I think it's wrong to rape anybody, priests included. If that's not what you meant then I suggest you check what you've written to avoid ambiguity ;-)

BTW, don't think for one second I didn't notice you admitting to objective morality.

Admitting to it? I stated quite categorically that I believe it exists.

With an atheistic worldview that would be impossible no matter if you are in the 'cult of Dawson' (Bahnsen Burner) or not.

Please demonstrate in principle that objective morality is impossible in an atheistic worldview or withdraw your claim.

>>You would be forced to claim that molesting children is good and righteous should your God demand it, as you believe that might makes right.

Absolutely not!!

Really? You've handwaved away genocide before now and claimed God would have had 'sufficient moral reason' to commit such an atrocity. Why all of a sudden would God not have sufficient moral reason in this instance?

You and I seem to be in disagreement with regards to the meaning of ‘omnipotent’.

Possible.

Omnipotence simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do evil,

Ah, yes, we do disagree. There's nothing in the definition of omnipotence that would preclude the ability to commit acts considered evil, indeed you give your God a get-out-of-jail-free card with your 'sufficient moral reason' claim. Instead it's the claim that God is omnibenevolent that should preclude the ability to do evil surely? I will note that this then forces you to find some way of ignoring the contradictory nature of these claims i.e. omnibenevolence means God cannot do 'evil' things which of course precludes Him being omnipotent (which requires He be able to do ... well ... anything) but I'm sure you'll handwave like crazy anyway.

as Good is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God.

Simply moving the question of what 'good' is to another level doesn't make the question go away. Is God's nature 'good' simply because it's God's nature or can it be measured against a truly objective standard of 'goodness'? The former still makes your morality subjective. The latter removes God as the 'cause' of morality.

>>For example: I’m walking alone in a street at night. Then some guy grabs me, pushes me to the floor, climbs on top of me and puts a knife into my throat and says: “If you scream I’ll kill you.” I’m scared to death and I don’t want to die, so I don’t scream/don’t fight back and he rapes me. So, I was – somehow – partially guilt of my own rape? I gave myself to evil? Is that what you think?

Yes, you gave yourself to evil. You are to NEVER give in and FIGHT for what is right ALWAYS. (Matthew 10:28) I am sure you heard of the saying that evil reigns when good people do nothing. You should fight back even if you lose your life. What is life if you do not fight for good anyway. If you believe this life is all you have then yes you will be AFRAID to lose your life and will give in to evil demands. Its not an honorable worldview, to say the least. Remember the people that fought back in United Airlines Flight 93, they died a righteous death.

>> Yes, you gave yourself to evil. You are to NEVER give in and FIGHT for what is right ALWAYS. I am sure you heard of the saying that evil reigns when good people do nothing. You should fight back even if you lose your life. What is life if you do not fight for good anyway. If you believe this life is all you have then yes you will be AFRAID to lose your life and will give in to evil demands. Its not an honorable worldview, to say the least. Remember the people that fought back in United Airlines Flight 93, they died a righteous death.

If someone threatens to kill if you react it's stupidity to react (unless you have some death wish, which I don't). If a man threatened to kill me if I scream or react I wouldn't. I love my life and - for exactly the reason this life is the only one I have and I want more time to enjoy it - I don't want to die a violent death (if I can prevent that from happening). My instinct is to survive. If there's a way to fight back (or run) without the risk of getting killed I will, but if someone threatens to kill me if I try to run, to scream or to fight back, I won't. I don't see how trying not to be killed is "giving yourself to evil". In the example, I will be raped, yes. But at least I will be alive to report my rape and do anything I can to put the rapist in jail. In anyway me (or any other rape victim) would deserve to be stonned to death for not screaming or not fighting back just like your bible instructs.

In the case of girl (or boy) being raped by an adult. They are not strong enough to fight back. So, they are guilt of their sexual abuse?I want to see if you have the courage to go to a rape victims' support group and tell those people they were partially guilt of their own rape for not fighting back or screaming, even though facing a death threat.

For example: a man stops in front of you, points a gun at you and demands you give to him your wallet, cellphone, whatever you have in your pockets. The robber is clearly nervous and any reaction of yours can get you killed. Would you scream for help or jump at the guy and fight back? If you don't react you'll be giving yourself to evil? You will be guilty of your mugging for not fighting back? Or your life is less important than a cellphone and wallet?

The people who died on the Flight 93 would've die anyway. They just decided - that if they would die anyway - their deaths wouldn't be for nothing. They fought against the terrorists with the purpose to save other people, not themselves. Different motive and situation. If I had to die to save others, I would.

Seriously D.A.N, I can't believe there's people like you. But what could've I expect from someone who uses such an immoral and violent holy book as a guide for moral conduct?

>>If someone threatens to kill if you react it's stupidity to react (unless you have some death wish, which I don't). If a man threatened to kill me if I scream or react I wouldn't.

No. You place evil in charge that's all. You place evil in charge of you. You give them authority over you. I would never do that. I teach my kids never to do that. You're afraid, I get it. We are not.

>>I love my life and - for exactly the reason this life is the only one I have and I want more time to enjoy it - I don't want to die a violent death (if I can prevent that from happening). My instinct is to survive.

Hmm. Matthew 16:26 comes to mind. This also reminds me of a quote by Ben Franklin,

I love my life so much I am willing to fight to the death for how I wish to live...free.

>>If there's a way to fight back (or run) without the risk of getting killed I will, but if someone threatens to kill me if I try to run, to scream or to fight back, I won't.

You're a slave to your own fear.

>>I want to see if you have the courage to go to a rape victims' support group and tell those people they were partially guilt of their own rape for not fighting back or screaming, even though facing a death threat.

They are merely guilty of not having self respect. I teach my daughter to fight and scream until she cannot fight anymore or is killed. NEVER give in or give up. Its why life is worth fighting for.

>>a man stops in front of you, points a gun at you and demands you give to him your wallet, cellphone, whatever you have in your pockets. The robber is clearly nervous and any reaction of yours can get you killed. Would you scream for help or jump at the guy and fight back?

Neither. I would give him my watch, my wallet, the keys to my van. I would even sign the title of the van over to him. I would even drive to the ATM and give him a couple of hundred dollars to help him out. (Luke 6:30) I certainly would witness to him. Material possessions are not worth dying for. Your life is. Your dignity is.

>>If you don't react you'll be giving yourself to evil? You will be guilty of your mugging for not fighting back?

No, you would be guilty of placing material possessions above life though. You would be guilty of breaking the first and second commandment also.

>>They just decided - that if they would die anyway - their deaths wouldn't be for nothing.

Amen!

>>If I had to die to save others, I would.

You're just not willing to die for your, and others, own freedoms. Got it. Remember, by not trying to kill that rapist you are ALLOWING him to live to rape others. Good luck with that morality. We could've expected that from someone who uses such an immoral guide as self preservation, over others safety, for their moral conduct.

>> No. You place evil in charge that's all. You place evil in charge of you. You give them authority over you. I would never do that. I teach my kids never to do that. You're afraid, I get it. We are not.

The guilt of a rape doesn’t lie on the victim; it lies on the rapist. He’s the one committing the crime. A rape victim is terrified and the only thing she/he thinks about is getting out of that terrible situation alive. That’s it. It’s the instinct of survival.

If I was being raped on gun (or knife point) I wouldn’t react. Why? Because I want to live. Because I would have no use being dead. I would live to report my rape, to help the police in the investigation and do everything in my power to condemn the rapist so he can pay for his crime in jail. I would be helping making the society and the place I live safer. That would be me fighting back. The one who laughs last is the one who laughs best.

>> Hmm. Matthew 16:26 comes to mind.

I don’t believe in souls either.

>> You're not an American are you?No, I’m brazilian (thankfully)

>> They are merely guilty of not having self respect. Really? I’m being serious this time. Go to a rape victims’ support group and tell them that. Tell them they were partially responsible and guilty for the crime committed against them and then tell me the outcome.

>> I teach my daughter to fight and scream until she cannot fight anymore or is killed. NEVER give in or give up. Its why life is worth fighting for.

Life is worth fighting for, that’s why reacting and fighting back is not always a good idea. Unless you are suicidal and wants to die as soon as possible.

>> Neither. I would give him my watch, my wallet, the keys to my van. I would even sign the title of the van over to him. I would even drive to the ATM and give him a couple of hundred dollars to help him out.

My life is more important than any material possessions. But you bet that I would report the thief. I wouldn’t even demand to have my things back. But he would have to pay for the crime he committed. I wouldn’t let him go unpunished.

>> You would be guilty of breaking the first and second commandment also.

What this has to do with the first and second commandments?

The only commandments that worth something are: honor your father and mother (if they deserve the respect); not to kill, not to commit adultery, not to steal and not to lie (this last one is a little difficult not to break, since everybody lies).

The other commandments involving god are not important to me.

>> Remember, by not trying to kill that rapist you are ALLOWING him to live to rape others. Good luck with that morality. We could've expected that from someone who uses such an immoral guide as self preservation, over others safety, for their moral conduct.

Why should I kill him? To be no different from him? I would make sure he would pay for his crimes by being arrested, judged, and condemned and spending most of his life in jail. Putting him in jail it would be making a favor to the society.

If he killed me because I screamed or reacted he could dump my body in a place no one would ever find (and you know…no body no crime) he would be free to make new victims. Again, I would have no use being dead.

Since when self-preservation is wrong? Wanting to live is not good? Self preservation is the instinct of every living being. Sometimes we can fight back to save our lives, but other times the best thing to do to save our lives is not fighting back (even police officers say that).

But when the situation demands we let go of our sense of self-preservation to save others (because of our ability to feel empathy towards others)For example, if I was in the flight 93 knowing I would die anyway I would fight against those terrorists in order to save other people.

DanRemember, by not trying to kill that rapist you are ALLOWING him to live to rape others.That screws up your god then, Dan...how many rapes does he allow each and every day by just allowing the rapist to live???

Good luck with that morality.Right back at you.

We could've expected that from someone who uses such an immoral guide as self preservation, over others safety, for their moral conduct.Dan...didn't you read what bellecherie said?

If I had to die to save others, I would?

So what do you do?

1) You outright ignore it as juding by your previous statement above

2) You then reason that since she mentioined that she'd die to save other's lives that must somehow mean that she's not willing to risk her life for other's freedoms.

You act like she outright said that!

You word-twisting, lying fuck, Dan.

Christ, I'm sick of you twisting people's words around. I'm still pissed that you tried that shit with me a while back.

bellecherie, just read the comment in that link and the ones before and after it...see how long it takes for me to get him to be truthful.

>>Please demonstrate in principle that objective morality is impossible in an atheistic worldview or withdraw your claim.

I thought I have bit.ly/assmorals

You thought wrong. You simply made the presupp assertion that morality requires your God. Not once do you demonstrate that it is impossible for atheists to account for objective morality. It's another common presupp dodge - make an assertion and then shift the burden of proof.

You also failed to answer my objections at the time:

freddies_dead said...

Presupp rubbish.

How do you even account for objectivity from within your inherently subjective Christian worldview?

It's always amusing to see a moral relativist telling other people there morals are relative...

Is God good because there's a truly objective standard by which to measure or is he good because he dictates what is good?

If it's the former then something must exist apart from God which, of course, makes God unnecessary. If it's the latter then your morality is no less subjective than you claim atheist morality to be.June 9, 2010 2:37 AM

All you could manage was that whole "God is the objective standard" rubbish....

>>Is God's nature 'good' simply because it's God's nature or can it be measured against a truly objective standard of 'goodness'?

How is that possible if God is that objective standard of 'goodness'. Everything MUST be measured against Him. He is the object in objective.

See, here you go again, trying to paint the nature of a concious entity as an objective standard (and displaying your ignorance on the concept of objectivity i.e. mind-independent)

Oh, and by what standard do you call God the objective standard of goodness?

Any chance you could actually answer this time? Or can I just expect another dodge?

>>I'm sick of you twisting people's words around. I'm still pissed that you tried that shit with me a while back.

If you are willing to do the wrong thing for self preservation. You're wrong. You must understand that I am a military guy. If you're willing to die for the freedoms of others then great! If you are willing to save yourself instead, then you're wrong. If you quietly sit idly by and let evil happen, or even worse reign, then you don't deserve to be here.

If a man is in the frontline fighting and gets scared and runs away (during a war) to leaves his fellow soldiers to fend for themselves, that is a punishable crime, the penalty is death on site. That is in the military code. (Uniform Code of Military Justice, Post Abandonment 885. ART. 85. DESERTION)

My point is that if you are not there to FIGHT for freedoms (of you and others) then you're wrong. YOU ALWAYS FIGHT AGAINST EVIL. Its appalling to think that a woman will just, because she is frightened, not fight against evil. As a man, I just cannot relate. My wife would fight like hell until she breaks every bone in that man's body or breaks every bone in her body trying to fend him off.

>>I know, when a bear comes into a camp of kids, you do not have to be faster then the bear. You have to be faster then the slowest kid. Have fun living with your failed morality.

Here's what I wrote in my comment (the full part):

Here's what I said "Since when self-preservation is wrong? Wanting to live is not good? Self preservation is the instinct of every living being. Sometimes we can fight back to save our lives, but other times the best thing to do to save our lives is not fighting back (even police officers say that)."

Now the part you chose to ignore: "But when the situation demands we let go of our sense of self-preservation to save others (because of our ability to feel empathy towards others)For example, if I was in the flight 93 knowing I would die anyway I would fight against those terrorists in order to save other people."

And there's another thing I said in my other comment: "If I had to die to save others, I would."

So - using your example of a bear invading a camp of kids - I would never run away and leave the kids alone to be attacked by the bear. Since I know those kids are slower than me I would help them to run away from the bear. I would tell them to run as fast as they could and if they were children not capable of running (because some of them froze) I would carry them. I would save as many kids as I could even if facing the risk of being killed by the bear. If the bear killed me at least my death wasn't in vain. I died saving those children. Why? Because I care about those kids, I don't want their lives to be brutally interrupted, I don't want to see them hurt. Is that being "morally flawed?"

D.A.N, you are very dishonest and lying person. You always distort our words to try to make us look bad. You ignore, edit, filter and distort everything we say because you can't admit a godless person can be good, righteous and moral. You choose to live in a little tiny bubble where morality is always objective, comes from god and that only those who have "god in their hearts"/are christians are accountable to morality, goodness and righteousness. You can't admit that some people out there do good for goodness' sake and not for the empty promise of going to heaven after they die. Considering the god you believe and your ultimate authority (the bible) you are the one who can't be accountable to morality, goodness and righteousness. Your bible is as immoral as Mein Kampf. Both of those books endorses/incites horrible acts and tells is god's will. You are accountable to god and god alone. You - deep down - don't care about other people.

I'm accountable to myself, to the planet I live, to people and all other living creatures I share this planet with. I'm not accountable to some petty, jealous, vengeful, violent, intolerant, racist, sexist, homophobe, immoral, mythical god that you claim to be good, loving and righteous despite all the bad things were done at his name/at his command.

An advice: start acting like an adult and stop editing people’s comments with the sole purpose to distort their words. You have a high functioning brain, so please…do him some justice and stop underrating your intelligence (mine and others who comment your posts’ intelligence included)

Great! I am glad we cleared that up. Now back to the rape scenario. Why do you cherish those kids enough to fight the evil trying to hurt them, empathy for others, but would allow evil to rule you, no empathy for self.

D.A.N, you are very dishonest and lying person.

How can being dishonest and lying be universally wrong in your worldview?

>>You always distort our words to try to make us look bad.

No need. You do a fine job.

>>You can't admit that some people out there do good for goodness' sake and not for the empty promise of going to heaven after they die.

Sure, yet they cannot account for the "goodness" part, without God. Otherwise "goodness" is a mere variable to the individual.

>>Your bible is as immoral as Mein Kampf.

Before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.

>>You - deep down - don't care about other people.

And you KNOW this how?

>>You have a high functioning brain

And you KNOW this how? Oh, er, sorry wrong time. I concede that the evidence is overwhelming. :7)

>>An advice: start acting like an adult and stop editing people’s comments with the sole purpose to distort their words.

Said the ironic Atheist. I can't believe you say this when your whole worldview attempts to edit God's word with the sole purpose to distort. Ironic meter is about to explode.

>>How can being dishonest and lying be universally wrong in your worldview?When you lie and is dishonest with the purpose to make others look bad, to harm other people is wrong. And that’s exactly what you do here. You edit and filter what people say, distorting their words just because you don’t agree with them.

>> At least I’m not dishonest and I don’t distort your words to make you look bad. You do that to yourself already.

>> You are the one who can’t account for goodness on your own. You need a violent/intolerant god to “tell you” what’s good and what isn’t. If your god tells people to commit infanticide in his name you think this action is justifiable and your god is good and righteous. Well, killing people is not the idea I have of righteousness and goodness, no matter who commanded who to do it.

>> (…)you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for.

Genocide and the holocaust was, is and always will be a terrible thing. I strongly disagree with what Hitler and his nazi pals did to jews, homosexuals, gypsies, mentally ill people, the physically disabled, political enemies, Jehovah’s witnesses, etc, the “medical experiments” performed in those camps, the mass executions, etc.

You can’t account for that, since your “loving god” commanded genocide to be done in his name. So I guess, if there’s someone who would agree with Hitler and his ethnical cleanse that someone would be you, since is god’s will.

>> How do I know you don’t care about people? Well, I’ll leave that to your own words:

"I do not stone my kids because I have hope for them still (they're babies). If one of my children grew up to be a spit in God's face joyful pedophile of the highest evil...I just might consider that option. Plus I count on the 'good tree will bear good fruit' thingy. If my kid is evil then it speaks volumes of myself. Stoning myself would be the option I would consider in that case."In that case, you don’t even care about yourself. The fact you might consider to stone your own children to death if they “grew up to be a spit in god’s face joyful pedophile of the highest evil” is already prove that you don’t care and have no empathy towards other people.

Me – on the other hand – would never consider to stone my children to death if they disobeyed me.

>> Based on what I see in your comments and posts you do have a high functioning brain, you just don’t use him well/enough.

>> I can't believe you say this when your whole worldview attempts to edit God's word with the sole purpose to distort.

Am I distorting god’s word when I put – entire passages, with no editing – about the killing of homosexuals, nonbelievers, raped women, disobedient children, men who masturbate, infanticide, genocide, etc, etc, etc,?

You are the one who distorts your own “ultimate authority aka the bible” to sugarcoat the fact the god you blindly follow is a violent, intolerant and hateful mythical creature.Quoting what you said about Isaiah endorsing the rape of women, the dashing to pieces of children and the destruction of their houses:

Your quote mine of Isaiah 13:16 was obvious. It even reads as a poem. Look at the spacing and form of the words. Its not INSTRUCTIONS as you are claiming. You do understand that this entire thing was a dream of Isaiah's. Just read Isaiah 1:1

And then I quote another of your sugarcoatings:

I said : "So, because it was written as a poem and it was Isaiah’s dream it makes less terrible? No, it doesn't..."

D.AN. said: "It makes it less INSTRUCTIONAL as you said it was. Don't try to change the subject."

My answer in another comment: "Less instructional? So it was an instructional dream then? I didn’t change the subject. I said that the fact it was poem of a dream it doesn’t make rape less terrible."

DanIf you are willing to do the wrong thing for self preservation. You're wrong. You must understand that I am a military guy.I'm sure they'd be proud of how "honest" you are.

If you're willing to die for the freedoms of others then great! If you are willing to save yourself instead, then you're wrong.Where do you get that "save yourself instead" shit from? You distored what bellecherie said, and you're not honest enough to admit it.

If you quietly sit idly by and let evil happen, or even worse reign, then you don't deserve to be here.Remember what I had said...I said that I would throw the nazis off the trail. You said that you would let them know that you were hiding jews, thus ensuring their death.

If a man is in the frontline fighting and gets scared and runs away (during a war) to leaves his fellow soldiers to fend for themselves, that is a punishable crime, the penalty is death on site. That is in the military code. (Uniform Code of Military Justice, Post Abandonment 885. ART. 85. DESERTION)

My point is that if you are not there to FIGHT for freedoms (of you and others) then you're wrong. YOU ALWAYS FIGHT AGAINST EVIL. Its appalling to think that a woman will just, because she is frightened, not fight against evil. As a man, I just cannot relate. My wife would fight like hell until she breaks every bone in that man's body or breaks every bone in her body trying to fend him off. May 17, 2011 3:23 PM

Dan, all your blather about "you always fight against evil" doesn't mean a damn thing when one remembers that you would tell the nazis the truth that you were sheltering jews.

>>Oh, and by what standard do you call God the objective standard of goodness?

Revelation and by the impossible of the contrary.

You could have just admitted you didn't have one.

Your claim to revelation requires either omniscience on your part or you must resort to an infinite regress of revelations that support your original revelation. My argument is simple - without being omniscient yourself you could never be 100% certain about either the source or the veracity of the 'revelation'. If you dispute this please show how it is possible.

As for the old 'impossibility of the contrary' canard, Reynold has already pointed out that your claim is nothing more than a baseless assertion. The onus is on you to backup this claim and I (and others) have asked time and time again for you to demonstrate how, in principle, the atheist cannot account for morality/logic/etc... - you've never done so. Instead you simply repeat your claim and try to shift the burden of proof. I can only conclude that you can't actually demonstrate the 'impossibility of the contrary' and so I am right to dismiss it.

If you are willing to do the wrong thing for self preservation. You're wrong.

What counts as the wrong thing here, Dan? Is it right or wrong, in your book, to allow yourself to be killed in the act of attempting to save others? To thus render yourself useless, and possibly have screwed up your attempted rescue as well? What about firefighters who can't go into a building because it's just too dangerous? Are they wrong? Would it be better if they went in and died? As the saying goes, he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day...

If you're willing to die for the freedoms of others then great! If you are willing to save yourself instead, then you're wrong.

What about saving yourself as well? Is that wrong in your world?

If you quietly sit idly by and let evil happen, or even worse reign, then you don't deserve to be here.

How do you figure that, when acting in this very fashion apparently, according to you, makes your god worthy of worship?

Its appalling to think that a woman will just, because she is frightened, not fight against evil.

Is it more evil for her to be raped than to be murdered? I wouldn't be surprised if you thought that. What if she's drugged or otherwise rendered unconscious? Is she still guilty of not fighting against evil, according to you?

As a man, I just cannot relate.

Well, that much is obvious, at least. You come remarkably close to victim-blaming here.

My wife would fight like hell until she breaks every bone in that man's body or breaks every bone in her body trying to fend him off.

So, it would be your preference to have your wife reduced to a bloody pulp than raped, huh? Is one of these things a greater violation than the other? It's hard to see how. Not saying that either is a good outcome, of course - much better if she succeeded in taking him down or getting away from him - but it would be hard for her to testify and help put her attacker behind bars if she was dead or in a coma.

That's exactly what I was trying to say to D.A.N. In the example I used about me being raped because I didn't want to die I told him I would have no use being dead. I would want to live to put the rapist in jail and make him pay for his crime. That would be much more effective.

>>When you lie and is dishonest with the purpose to make others look bad, to harm other people is wrong.

Yes, we know you're ASSERTING its wrong but HOW is it wrong?

Within your worldview of 'subjective morals' how can anything be right and wrong universally?

>>Genocide and the holocaust was, is and always will be a terrible thing.

So there ARE absolutes? Great can you explain universal and absolutes within your atheistic worldview? Again, you just invoked a moral law or standard that your atheistic worldview cannot back up. This is the point and where your worldview breaks down. We need not go further.

Instead of fighting for freedoms because you wish to preserve your life? No that would be wrong. You MUST fight for freedoms, even your own. Its worth dying for.

If you quietly sit idly by and let evil happen, or even worse reign, then you don't deserve to be here.

>>How do you figure that, when acting in this very fashion apparently, according to you, makes your god worthy of worship?

Haha, touché. Its not that which makes Him worthy of worship, but I liked that come back. *tips hat

>>Is it more evil for her to be raped than to be murdered? I wouldn't be surprised if you thought that.

Both are evil acts, that must be combated.

>>What if she's drugged or otherwise rendered unconscious? Is she still guilty of not fighting against evil, according to you?

If she chooses not to testify or peruse a conviction? Yes. Unconscious is unconscious, not much fighting can happen but in the courts. I just know my 9 year old can put me down hard, as she has, so it wouldn't take too much to ask for her to fight back when accosted. Its a scary thought, and I don't wish it on anyone. You MUST fight back and make it the most difficult thing that man has ever done, or will ever do. Do you know why people keep robing banks repeatedly? Because they feel they can GET AWAY WITH IT! If more would scratch and fight back and make it impossible for them there would be less, ...I would hope. Also, if you "Settle out of court" for some disclosed amount because he was famous or something like that, you're just as evil.

>>You come remarkably close to victim-blaming here.

Basically, if you do not feel that your virginity is worth fighting for when someone is trying to TAKE IT FROM YOU then you're wrong, as the Bible says.

>>So, it would be your preference to have your wife reduced to a bloody pulp than raped, huh?

Not at all. You are assuming a great deal. Like her loosing. Woman are so much stronger then you could ever imagine, especially in danger. Shame on your for giving up that fight.

If Rape is indeed a POWER thing, as its been evidenced by science. Then the Bible is right to FIGHT BACK. Taking the power away is one way to prevent rapes. God KNOWS what He is talking about here. They're opportunistic and weak for even thinking of such things. NEVER give them a perceived opportunity. If they feel they have an opportunity to succeed in a rape or murder, then cause doubt or REMOVE that opportunity continually. I speak out of love here.

>>Sometimes you just have to fight smarter, not harder..

Fighting back is smarter. Quietly being passive until they are through treating you and your body in such horrible way is appalling and wrong. Trust God to be with you, and giving you the advantage over the criminal. Evil will win if we let them. Don't let it. Its another reason why I became a Christian. I want evil to lose.

>>I would want to live to put the rapist in jail and make him pay for his crime. That would be much more effective.

You're assuming WAY TOO MUCH here. You did not give others and opportunity to come to your aid for screaming and fighting back. You think that others, like loved ones and police, are not fight for you also. You're not alone here. You didn't give yourself enough credit to resist and break away from him, to return to convict him later. Also, if you seek payment afterwards, in the form of a court settlement, then you're simply a whore. Please fight!!

Evil deserves to lose, it deserves resistance not acceptance. Atheism is acceptance to evil. Atheists allows rapers to win.

>> So there ARE absolutes? Great can you explain universal and absolutes within your atheistic worldview? Again, you just invoked a moral law or standard that your atheistic worldview cannot back up. This is the point and where your worldview breaks down. We need not go further.

Yes, we need to go further. Genocide is wrong and always will be because is wrong to take human lives. But there are people who don’t think that way. Hitler was one of themThe genocide in Rwanda where 500.000 people were killed because of an ethnic tension between the tutsis and the hutus. For them, genocide was morally justifiable.

For me, it isn’t and never will be. I can be accountable to that. You are the one who can’t – because as I said many times – in the bible (that you claim to be your ultimate authority) there’s genocide endorsed by your god. Since you base your morality on the bible and on god’s words you agree with genocide and every single crime mentioned/incited/endorsed in the bible.

>> You're assuming WAY TOO MUCH here. You did not give others and opportunity to come to your aid for screaming and fighting back. You think that others, like loved ones and police, are not fight for you also. You're not alone here. You didn't give yourself enough credit to resist and break away from him, to return to convict him later. Also, if you seek payment afterwards, in the form of a court settlement, then you're simply a whore. Please fight!!

Like I said in my example. If I’m at knife point I wouldn’t react because I wouldn’t want to die. I would want to live to put that criminal in jail so that he can pay for his crime. That would be me facing the rapist and fighting back. The police would fight for me doing their job, investigating the rapist and putting him in prison. My family would fight for me by supporting me and being on my side in every step of the way (instead of stoning me to death because I didn’t scream).

For argument’s sake: I decide to fight the man who’s trying to rape me and then he kills me. He buries my body in a place where it can’t be found and then runs away, free to rape another women. Did I do any good being dead? No. Because I didn’t live to make him pay for raping me and helping other women from becoming his victims.

You may think that god’s judgment is all there is, but I don’t. The human justice is not perfect but it’s all we have. If wanting him to face a trial and be convicted by a jury and see him being sent to prison for 30 years instead of waiting for a divine punishment against the rapist (that will never come) makes me a whore, so be it.

At least I’m not a bible thumper who chose to live in ignorance, uses an immoral book as guide for moral conduct and seats on his ass and pray every day asking and begging and pleading to some sky fairy to do everything and solve all his problems for him instead of actually doing something.

>>If wanting him to face a trial and be convicted by a jury and see him being sent to prison for 30 years instead of waiting for a divine punishment against the rapist (that will never come) makes me a whore, so be it.

No you're mistaken. I guess I should of stressed a MONETARY settlement. That was what was on my mind when I was saying that. If you send him to prison for 30 years, you're my friend not a whore. :7)

Where did you get that thing from "monetary settlement"? I told you here many times that my reaction would be reporting the rape and make the rapist pay for his crime by being prosecuted, judged and put behind bars for a very long time. For goodness' sake...

Instead of fighting for freedoms because you wish to preserve your life? No that would be wrong. You MUST fight for freedoms, even your own. Its worth dying for.

Do you know when people fight the hardest, Dan? When they're fighting for something they feel part of - their community, their family, their team, whatever. Something they have a stake in. If everyone fights together for their own freedoms, success is that much easier to achieve.

If she chooses not to testify or peruse a conviction?

When did I even suggest that she would choose not to? You accuse me of making assumptions, then you go and assume that I meant something I didn't even write.

I just know my 9 year old can put me down hard, as she has, so it wouldn't take too much to ask for her to fight back when accosted.

And I'll bet you were really trying to hurt her too, weren't you, Dan? Sure.

Do you know why people keep robing banks repeatedly? Because they feel they can GET AWAY WITH IT! If more would scratch and fight back and make it impossible for them there would be less, ...I would hope.

The trouble is, we live in a society based on entrenched oppression and exploitation that teaches people to be powerless. That's got a lot more to do with why people keep robbing banks and committing rapes and other assaults than a lack of vigilantes on the streets.

Also, if you "Settle out of court" for some disclosed amount because he was famous or something like that, you're just as evil.

And again, you're reading stuff into my comment that wasn't even hinted at.

Basically, if you do not feel that your virginity is worth fighting for when someone is trying to TAKE IT FROM YOU then you're wrong, as the Bible says.

I like your assumption that virginity is the main thing at stake when a person is threatened with rape. It shows just how clueless you are about the subject. Maybe you should chat with some male convicts who have been gang-raped in prison and tell them they should have fought harder...

If Rape is indeed a POWER thing, as its been evidenced by science.

So you concede this now? What happened to your rampant evolutionist trying to sew his wild oats?

Taking the power away is one way to prevent rapes.

Wrong again. Many rapes are motivated by a desperate frustration and anger born of feelings of powerlessness and disenfranchisement that are a result of social and economic inequalities. The oppressed kick downwards.

The way to prevent rapes is to give people back a sense of control over their own lives. Your way is to treat the symptoms, not the causes. And your religion is complicit in the machinery of oppression, because it teaches people to accept the shit that happens to them and to think they are unworthy scum who deserve no better.

>>You distored what bellecherie said, and you're not honest enough to admit it.

You're doing it too. You just invoked a moral law or standard that your atheistic worldview cannot back up.Even if that was true, which it ain't, how did I twist the words that someone else said, Dan?

This is the point and where your worldview breaks down. We need not go further.Ever hear of Tu Quoque Dan?

I guess youre worldview breaks down because of the fact that your god endorses and commands acts of genocide that, if done by a person's orders, you'd find evil. Then there's the fact that if your god is the "objective standard of morality" then it's morally alright to burn witches to death.

If that's no longer the case, please find biblical justification for that, otherwise you're stealing from the atheists worldview.

You said that you would let them know that you were hiding jews, thus ensuring their death.You ASSUME that it would ensure their death. You're not accounting for my baby Pink.You're not accounting for fucking reality here, Dan. Look at the track record. Bottom line, if you were in nazi occupied territory and hiding Jews, the only way to have a chance of keeping them alive would to to throw those Nazi buggers off of their trail.

How is that fighting against evil? Well, I named her 'Pink' because that's all you see when you use her. :7)Right...ONE person with ONE weapon against an entire NATION??? Are you that batshit? What's to stop them from just bombing the hell out of your house (if all else somehow were to fail)?

Inspiration

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." ~Ronald Reagan----"A great many of those who debunk traditional values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process." ~C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (1944)----"If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for." ~C.H. Spurgeon----”Prayer is not overcoming God's reluctance, but laying hold of His willingness.” ~Martin Luther----”Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed.” ~Paul Manata----Until the Holy Spirit regenerates the sinner and brings him to repentance, his presuppositions will remain unaltered. And as long as the unbeliever's presuppositions are unchanged a proper acceptance and understanding of the good news of Christ's historical resurrection will be impossible. ~Dr. Bahnsen----“One of the most pernicious falsehoods ever to be almost universally accepted is that the scientific method is the only reliable way to truth” ~Professor Richard H. Bube, Stanford University----Rules of atheism"Science":

Theists will consider natural causes.Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.

Theism posits an eternal mind followed by contingent matter.

Atheism posits matter followed by contingent minds.----"Evolution is the tinfoil hat used by atheists to keep God out of their brainwaves" ~Bevets

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end" ~I. L. Cohen----from City of Angels

Seth: You're an excellent doctor.Maggie: How do you know?Seth: I have a feeling.Maggie: That's pretty flimsy evidence.Seth: Close your eyes. It's just for a moment.[touches her hand]Seth: What am I doing?Maggie: You're... touching me.Seth: Touch. How do you know?Maggie: Because, I feel it.Seth: You should trust that. You don't trust it enough.

"Ask the poor. They will tell you who the Christians are." ~Mahatma Gandhi

"Some want to live within the sound of church or chapel bells, I want to run a rescue shop within the yard of hell." ~C.T. Studd

"You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body." ~C.S. Lewis

"Waiting is not wasting when you are waiting on the Lord. God works while we wait." ~unknown

"Since the bible defines a Christian as one who knows God, would you consider yourself to have been a Christian according to the biblical definition?" ~Thomas Bridges

Fun Quotes

Quasar: That's like saying: "look, none of the grasshoppers evolved fire-resistant skin when I put the flamethrower to them! Evolution must be false!"